/ N IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CG ....‘. a m. - I ......... V V‘ : H > S.A.NO, gg } Q % /2003 whmhjua (1 fig QQa ii /’ Shyamta Prasad Sa u, son of S i .Bhagwat Prasad,AEx ogubx Pond rqyw Moharrlr, 1/ (Chhattisgarh). Mahmand, Kanji House, Bilaspur VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through : District ollector, Bilaspur (Chha ttisgarh). Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Pan ayat, Bilha, Distt Bilspur hhattigarh). ...... a é ........... .... 1 ‘ C ci . a (C a XI-HC—78 (b9 Wm S‘AMP‘w/WB Fla 200 mm (W) WW§wW %sw%wm%¥1 WWW m 329/Er'of?o/E5i6fto/so few, teeter; 110,80 WW0§§$WWIWMQ$0$ Wahmmw‘aedarawWWeaamom ww$mmm§m'am$m%l 23.02.2007 Appel‘ant by $hri P.P.Sa u, Advacate. State by Shri Akhil Agra al, P.L. Respondent No.2 by Shr Aiok Bakshi, Advocate. Hear on admission, - Heard on M.(C).P.No.3 9/2007 which is an appiication under Order~41 Rub—27 of CAP.C. The document sought to be med pertains to year-1974 and has no nexus with the termination the appellant vide order dated 07-10— 1980. The appiication is dismis ed. The appeuant was appoi ted by the Janpad Sabha, Bilaspur as a Specia! Pond Moharrir, Mahm d on purely temporary basis till further orders on 15.09.70. His se ices were terminated by the C.E.O. Jahpad Panchayat, Bilha, trict Bilaspur by an order dated 07.10.1980 which reads as und r :- Wm W hear m w 7m. r oat/— gear-WM WWW fear—W (any a s XI—HC—78 W,W§,W o W 200 Wm (W) WWEWW mmmm *" amamm Reliance was piaced by the learned counsel for the appellant on Mathew P. Thomas v. Kerala State Civil Su I cor . Ltd.an others 2003 AIR SCW 1230 wwile contending that in order to arrive at a conclusion whether the order of termination is simpliciter or punitive, both the Courts below ought l‘o have looked at the background and attending circumstances whicr show that misconduct was the real basis and design to terminate tre service of the appellant, However, in the case iaw cited, despite the fact that the order of l termination contained certain sons for terminating the service of the probationer, the Apex Court eld that the order was of termination simpliciter and since no enqu was held, no nndings were arrived at and the employer was also ot inclined to continue the employee against whom there were com iaints, it was held that the allegations may provide a motive and not foundation, and therefore, the order of termination simpliciter would valid. Thus, the case law cited does not help the appellant in any m nner since in the present case also no departmental enquiry was initiat d against the appellant. e recorded a concurrent finding that the appellant herein did not hol a civil post and was not entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of lndia. lt was also held that the appellant herein held a purely contingent post, till further orders. The order dated 07.1 .1980 terminating the services of the appellant is an order of termin ion simpliciter and is neither stigmatic nor punitive in nature. Both the Courts below In the above circumstanc s, both the Courts below were justified whether the order dated 07.10.1980 in not litting the veil and probi was punitive in nature. E r a i e v XI-HC-78 HW,W,W m$rm mmwm F3 WW§WW %ar%1tm As a result, the appella: renef sought for by both the COL substantial question of law arise The appeal is dismissed. s for adjudication in this appeal. 1t herein was rightly disentitled to the "ts below. In this view of the matter, no WW (W) There shall be no order as to costs‘ Sdb Drlrp Raosaheb Deshmukh i Judge l gm» P.T.O. ‘fi‘s . Whwr.