The State of U.P. submitted that the services of the appellant were terminated in accordance with rule 3 A iv of the District Board Manual, that numberappeal lay against the.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 1, 1958, of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The affidavit catalogued serveral incidents in support of this case, and urged that the Board being companypetent had justifiably terminated the appellants services, and the validity of the resolution terminating his services was number liable to be challenged.
270 of 1956.
304 of 1962.
Writ No.
On behalf of the Board an affidavit was filed stating that the appellant was guilty of negligence, and unfaithfulness , and he was censured, his annual increments were stopped, and that he was once dismissed and thereafter the resolution of dismissal was rescinded.
The appellant averred that he had as Engineer of the Board rendered flawless service but a member of the Board named Tota Ram felt annoyed with him for reasons which had numberhing to do with the proper discharge of his duties as an Engineer,, and the President of the District Board was number very happy with the appellant for reasons best known to the President, that he had spent the best part of his life in the service of the District Board and even though he has been honest and faithfull in the discharge of his duties the District Board, has capriciously and without any justification terminated his services, and therefore the resolution of the Board terminating his services was invalid.
B. Agarwala and G.P. Lag, for respondent No.1 S. Hajela and 0.
P. Lag, for respondent 1963.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH J. On October 18, 1954, the District Board, Agra resolved to terminate after giving salary for three months in lieu of numberice, the employment of the appellant who held the office of Engineer under the Board, and intimation in that behalf was given to him.
April 15.
T. Desai and J.P. Goyal, for the appellant.
26 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the resolution passed by the Board on October 18, 1954, and the order dated December 5, 1956, passed by the State of U.P. dismissing the appellants appeal, and a writ in the nature of mandamus companymanding the Board and the State of U.P. to treat the appellant as the lawfully appointed Engineer of the District Board and number to give effect to the resolution terminating the services of the appellant passed by the Board on October 18, 1954.
The appellant then submitted a petition to the High Court of Allahabad under Art. ?
resolution terminating the services of the appellant under rule 3 A iv of the Rules regarding Officers and Servants of District Boards and that the order of the State Government rejecting the appeal was companyrect.
An appeal perferred by the appellant to the Government of U. P. against the order terminating his employment was dismissed on December 5, 1956.
Against the order passed by the High Court this appeal is preferred with certificate granted by the High Court.
