Aggrieved, the appellant filed a suit challenging the legality of the order of termination.
Upon the said findings.
Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed the suit.
It was companytended by the appellant that as numberreason was given in the impugned order, it was illegal and invalid being opposed to the principles of natural justice.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.1981 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No.
the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Addi tional District Judge.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
The State of Haryana took the matter to the High Court in a second appeal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The High Court affirmed the finding of the learned Additional District Judge as to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, but set aside his finding that the impugned order was a number speaking order.
The punishing authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and by the impugned order terminated the service of the appellant.
1870 of 1982.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT, J. In this appeal by special leave the appellant, a Bus Conductor of the Haryana Roadways, has challenged the validity of the order of termination of his service on the ground of failure of the punishing authority to give any reason for the impugned order in violation of the principles of natural justice.
A disciplinary proceeding was started against the appellant.
The Trial Court overruled the said companytention and also held that the Civil Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.
A charge was levelled against the appellant that he did number issue tickets to nine passengers, although he had taken the fare from each of them.
1556 of 1980.
C. Mohanta, Mahavir Singh and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondents.
M. Tarkunde and Prem Malhotra for the Appellant.
The 1059 Enquiry Officer, after companysidering the allegations companysti tuting the charge, the plea of the appellant in defence and the evidence adduced by the parties including the appellant, held that the charge against the appellant was proved.
