Court No. 2 IN HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 6078/2001 (Old No. 36389 of 1997). Smt. Manju Sharma, Wife of Sri R.K. Sharma, R/o National Seeds Corpora;tion, Post R.T.C., Hempur, Kashipur, District- Udham Singh Nagar. ……… Petitioners Versus 1. Union of India through Secreatary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. 2. Army Welfare Education Society (A.W.E.S.) A.G.’s Branch, Army Head Quarter, New Delhi through its Chairman. 3. Committee of Management, Remount Depot School, Hempur, Post R.T.C. Hempur, Kashipur District- Udham Singh Nagar through its Manager. 4. C-Hairman, Remount Depot School,Hempur, Kashipur, Ditrict-Udham Singh Nagar. 5. Manager, Remount Depot Primary School, Post R.T.C. Hempur, Kashipur, District- Udham Singh Nagar. 6. Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kashipur, District- Udham Singh Nagar. ……….. Respondents Date: March 25, 2008. Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Heard Sri Pulak Agarwal and Sri Bharat Bhushan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India/respondents. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 18.07.1994 on ad-hoc basis on temporary post of Assistant Teacher and her services were extended for further periods. Her services were terminated by impugned order dated 01.10.1997, contained in annexure No.15 to the writ petition. The ground of challenge is that she was not given any notice and opportunity of hearing though the charge of misconduct and indiscipline was the basis of termination order. In case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another versus Kaushal Kishore Shukla, reported in (1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases, page 691 the Apex Court has held that the appointing authority may take a lenient view and may drop the disciplinary proceedings and pass the order of termination. Here the termination order is simpliciter. Therefore, in view of the ratio of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another versus Kaushal Kishore Shukla (supra) the impugned order of termination cannot be said illegal. 3. The petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 25.03.2008 P.Singh