1.0 By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned termination order dated 26.07.2011 and order dated 01.03.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority.
2.0 The facts of the case are that the petitioner worked as a Clerk - General Duty for sixteen years in Ministry of Defence 9 (Army: Corps of Signals). After military service the petitioner was given appointment order dated 25.03.2010 by the respondent No.2 with one year of probation period. On 11.05.2011 the probation period was over and the petitioner was given one increment. The petitioner addressed letters to the respondent authority making suggestions for the betterment of the administration, wrongly deduction of charges/interest from customers and for healthy relations between management and employees. The probation period of the petitioner was extended by one year by order dated 08.06.2011. The respondent No.4- registered criminal complaint against the petitioner which was withdrawn. On 30.06.2011 the petitioner addressed a letter through proper channel viz., through respondent No.2 to the Police Commissioner, Jamnagar to reopen criminal case. Till date the letter is not forwarded to the Police Commissioner. The respondent credited one month's salary in the account of the petitioner and terminated the service. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority-Respondent No.-1 which came to be rejected. Hence this petition.
3.0 While considering the case, both the authorities found that petitioner was instructed and warned to be cautions by the appointing authority but no improvement was found in the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner. The petitioner has also not improved his style of functioning. Therefore, the appointing authority vide letter dated 26.07.2011 opined that the petitioner is not fit for confirmation in service and therefore, decided to terminate the service of the petitioner as Office Assistant (MP) by paying one month's pay in lieu of notice with immediate effect. It was also recorded by the appellate authority that the petitioner behaved indifferently and used indecent language and he lacked decency and politeness. He was using sarcastic and taunting remarks about higher authority. Under such circumstances it was not in the interest of the institution to continue him in service. I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the authority and this Court cannot substitute the finding and opinion of the employer. The petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru* Top