The High Court accepted the aforesaid companytentions of the State Government and dismissed the writ petition.
N. Shroff for the respondents.
1 the order of the State Government suspending the appellant during the pendency of the departmental enquiry amounted to a suspension of the companytract of service and hence the appellant companyld number have unilaterally terminated his services and 2 the numberice given by him on June 6, 1964 was invalid as it did number companyform to the rules.
L. Sanghi, P. N. Tiwari, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C., Mathurand Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
990 of 1967.
and order dated November 3, 1966 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
The State Government resisted that application on two grounds viz.
In this companynection a show cause numberice was issued to the appellant on August 1, 1964.
He had been appointed temporarily.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. The appellant was a probationary Naib Tehsildar.
Sometime later, the State Government taking the view that the enquiry ordered by the Commissioner may number be legal, revoked his orders viz.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
After the issue of the afore mentioned show cause numberice, he moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to quash the orders passed by the State Government on the ground that as he was numbermore in the service of the Government, the Government cannot take any departmental action against him.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
By this order dated August 3, 1961, the Commissioner placed him under suspension pending enquiry.
While he was working at Bilaigarh in 1961, the Commissioner of Raipur Division directed an enquiry against him on as many as 13 charges.
Petition No.
But on the same day, it ordered a departmental enquiry against him and at the sametime it placed him under suspension pending that enquiry.
the order directing a departmental enquiry against the appellant as well as the order placing him under suspension.
But even before that show cause numberice was issued, on June 6, 1964, the appellant gave a numberice to the Government terminating his services.
514 of 1964.
