IH IHB HXS3L COUR'r.OE_JODICAigSEGHH&'r'CIS©AfiH&[I'Bia&SPBR : -•- ^s.SQ. Q&SSMQQ3 • ^ • •- ' • •: PEIITIQNSR t DlialiaranKosara.-a S/e MatiettaE Raa Kssaria, Aged ab»ul; 32 years, a/s Viiiage Kiipa, PO sMabrson. lehs.tl & Bit;t:.Rajaaaagae>a (CG) VERSIJS RSSPONDEIin'S ^.-r^y ^^T ..^:syf:""' ^•y^" s 1) State ®fChhattisgarfa Tliceagli tfae Secretary, paaehs^at Departinent, BKS Bhawan, Baipar <^). 2) Th®Chtef Bxecutive Officer, Japad Panchayat^Chburiya, District Rajnandgaea (CS). 3) Sarpanch, Grwn paBchayat.Qunderdetol, Sleck Chhariya BtstrictsRajBandgaan (CS). ^ -^ —^.-^.. - WRI'l! PETIII08 OSBBR.A&'EietE 226/22ros' THE GQNSTI'RraS^.^: I B B I.A » ^ t S Ki i.i: la HIGH COURT QI^CHHATnSGARH AT BHASPU3R Writ Petition No. 2859 Petitioner Dhaluram Kosaiia Versus Respondents Stateof Chhattisgarh.&ofhers H Poatfororderou 7""Ju]y,2006 Sd/- SatishK.Agiiaistri ^- Judge ^ '.;>•..' ^. :.:£..:,_.• HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2859 of 2003 Petitioner Dhaluram Kosaria" Versus Respondeuts State of Chliattisgarh & others SB: Hon'bte Mr. Justice SatishK. Agnihotri, J Shri Parsy Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. i Sint. Anju Ahuja, Depuly Govenunent Advocate for the respondent No. 1, Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate forthe respondeat No.2 and 3. ORDER ( 7 u(uty, 2006) The foUowing order oftfae Court is passed by Sartlsh K. Agnihotri, J. The present petition filed iinder Article 226/227 offhe Constitution of India impugns the order dated 6.9.2003 (igjinexure P/6) passed by the respondent No.3 as beiag unconstitutioaal on the ground that the petitioner was not afForded any oppprtiuuty of heariag and ttie order was passed in. contraveution of fhe provisions of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipliue aad Appeafl Rules, 1999 (for short the Rules, 1999'). It was furfher prayed that fhe respondents be directed to atlow the petitioner to peribna his dufies as Panchayat Karmi-Secretaiy of the Gram Panchayat, Gunderdehi, Block- Churia, District- Rajnandgaon. The undisputed facts, in nutsheU, are that fhe petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Kanau on teinporary basis on fixed pay of Rs. 500/- p.m. by order dated 22.7.1996 (Annexure P/l). The petitioner was thereafter appointed as Panchayat Secretaiy ia fhe same Gram Ftoichayat by fhe CoUector (Panchayat Branch), Rajnandgaon under the provisions of Sectron 69 (1) of fhe Madhya -„;. • &s.&.^^^s^^^ gKi:SSw Pradesh Panch^at.Raj Avaia Gram Straraj ArtTimiyam, 19931% prdfir dated 10.8^2000 (Annexure P/3). The Deputy Dircctor, Panchayat and Socjal Wetfare Departiaent, Rajnan.dgaon issued a Hteino dated 17.2.2003 (AmiexureR-2/3)tp fhe Sarpanoh-S&cretaiy stating that fhei^ were coinplaints agamst the Saipanch aud the petitipuer- Seei^taiy. The Secrefary-petttioaer alongwith Sarpanchwas directed to reniam. present on 19.2.2003 infheofficepffh.eGraDi Psaiebayat, Gundenlehi to pardcipate ia fhe enquiry. Pursuaat to the said inemo ffae enquiry was tieldon 19.2.2003 aad 25.2.2003 by flie Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Departiaent, Rajiian.dgaon ^-;i whereia aUegations ofnusbehayiouT, asaault aud figh.tingwas proved parfly. With regard to fhe second chaige of pendency of crimmal case under section 420, it was found not pFoved. TIiud chai^e with rcgard to feaving the ineeting of Grani Sabha. was also found proved. Foitrth chai^e wifh regard to the uregularities ig.constructioD.ofW.B.M. road was also found proved. Fifth chai^e with"'tiegard to ureguladty in paym.ent ofpension was not •(bund pioved. Sixth charge ofnotholding the meetiag monthfy was found proved and seyenfh charge of irregularity jn allotmerit of Indira Awas Was not found proved. ^ On the basis of fhis enquiry report, the Deputy Director, PanGhayat ^ ' aad Social Welfare, Rajnaadgaon, vide letter dated 21.7.2003 (Anaexure R-1/6) addressed to the Sarpaiicli, Grain Paueliayat GundeFdehi, directed to issue show cause notice tp the petitiouer and on receipt of fhe reply, if auy, General Sabha ofthe Graia Paachayat being coinpetent, may reBiQve fhe petitioner fiToni service. AGCoidingly, the nieetmg of the Graiu Sabha was held on 25.8.2003 (AanexureR- 3/8) wfafirein. a refereiace offhfi letter dated 21.7.2003 ofthfiDeputy Director was mafle aiui it appeais that ttie saine was discussed also. ^'. ^ij -^ f .^ The Graia Sabha resohred by inajority to reinove fhe petitipiier (Secretary) fironi fhe post iu. Graun Panchayat, Gunderdehi 4. Pursuant to the said Grani Sabha resolution the services of fhe petitioner as Panchayat Karmi was termiaated-'vide order dated 6.9.2003 (Annexure P/6). 5. Shri Parag Kptecha, learaed counsel appearfng for the petitioueF subinits that Rule 7 of ftie Rules, 1999 provides for prDcedure before terminating service ofa ineiaberofPan.chayatlnthe instant case, the said provisions were not foUowed, ap defiuite charges were fi-ained and fhe petitioner was not served wifh fhe articles ofcharges before tioldiug aa enquiry leading to tenmiaation of fhe petittoner fix>m his services. Learued counsel further subnuts that though it was an appointment on teinporaiy basis but the teiininati.on order was passed on fhe basis ofcertaiaaUeged irregularities fouad prov^ ia the enquny CQnducted by the Depu'ty Director. The order is stig&atie. The same could uot have beeu passed without follCTnng fhe provisions of law, preseribed m Rule 7 of fhe Rules 1999. 7. Snit. Anju Ahuja, leamed colmsel appearing for flie responden.t No. l aad Shn Sandeep Dubey, leamed counsel appearing for tEe respondenls No. 2 aad 3, on fhe contraiy, submitted that ~fbs petitioner was appouited teiaporarily aud fhe order of termination was passed in terms offhe appouitment. It was further submitted fhat it is true that a prelunuiaiy enquiry was held and definite charges, as prescribed in Rute 7(2) of the Rules, 1999, were not fiaiaed before holding enquuy. However, in the facts of fhe case fUat fhe Onder of termination was passed not on acoount offhe enquuy but in terms of the appoiD.tmeiit, there was no necessily of hoMing enquuy ia ^ t-i_ 'i^S^S^^ Bi^; accordance with fhe prescribed procedure under fhe provisions of the Rule 7 ofthe Rules, 1999. It was furfher eontended that fhe order was siiapliciter termination and not stiginatic. Lastfy, it was contended fhat there is availabilily of altemati.ve reinedy and as such this petition be dismissed on the ground ofavailabililyoffhe altemative remedy. After having heard leamed counsel for fhe parfies and having perused the records appended to the petition and the retum. it is evident that the impugaed termination orderwas passed pn 6.9.2003 on fhe basis of the prelmunary enquiry held by fh.e Depuly Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Departm.ent. The letter dated 21.7.2003 (Annexure R-l/6) of the Deputy Director, Panchayat aad Sociat Welfare Departm.ent, Rajnandgaou, addressed to the SaTpanch, Gram Panchayat, Gunderdehi, clearly stated that the Grain Panchayat has fuU admmistrative coutrol to teke ..disciplinaiy action again.st Paachayat Kanni, after issuing proper ^how cause jnotice and considering the reply thereafter eto. Adnuftedly, the general body of the Gram Panchyat acted on the letter dated 21.7.2003 and passed the order of termination ofthe petitiouer fToin the post of Panchayat KaEmi wifhout foUowing the proper procedure of law as prescribed under Rule 7 offhe Rules, 1999, which is reproduced herein below:- "7. Procedure for imposing inajor peaatties.-(l) No order, unposiag ona ineinber of fhe Panchayat Service, auy of the penalties specified in clause (iv) to (via) ofrule 5 shaU be passed except after a forraal inquuy is held as far as inay be, in the Aamier heFeinafter provided. (2) When an order for fonnal iaquiry has been inade, fhe discipUnaiy aufhority shall fi'aine Defuute charges on fhe basM of aUegation.s and shaU commiinicate such charges, atongwith the statenient ofthe aUegations, to fhe ineinber ofthePanchayat Service and also reqiiire him. fo subnut, within such tiiae as inay be specified ^.Ji.-^-^sSsB.tis^KiSV. M.i, -g' awritten statemfiBt of defence and also to state whether tofi desH'e&Sijo' be hcard in'person. (3) The peisou against whom iuquuy is to be held shaB, fbr fhe purpose of preparing toe dcfence, be permitted to inspect and take extracts fiTom. such records as he may specify: • Provided fhat su.ch penniBsion inay be refiised if, for reasous to be recorded ifiwri.ting, in fhe opinionof fhe Enquiry Officer such iccprds are not rclevant for the purpose or it is agauist fhe pubUc in.terest t6 allow his access thereto. (4) On receipt of fhe written statelnent of defence or if any such statemeut is not received wifhin fhe time specified.lfae disciplinaxy auftiority niay hiinself enquire into such of the charges as are not adinitted or appoitit an Enquuy Officer to hold the inquiry aad forward to him his report and, if advised, his recQminendatiDn alongwifh aB the inqiiiry papers. (5) The disciplinaiy authority may noininate aay peraonto present the case iu suppoi't of the chai^es befere fhe Enqiury Officer, The uiember of fhe fanchayat Service may present hia case with the assistance of aay other Pancliayat Servaut of Stefe Govermnent Servant approved by fhe Eaquiry Offi^r but inay not eagage a legal practitioiier for the purpose, unless ffie~'--person uolninated by fhe disciplinaiy authority as aforeteaid is a legal practitioner or ualess fhe disciplinaiy authority having regard fo the CuTCUinstances of the case so permits. (6) tfthe servaat of fhe Paa.chayat Semce desires to be heard m. person, fie shaU be so heard. If he so desires or if fhe discipluiary aufhority so directs, au oral enquiry shall Ue held by fbfi Enquiry Officer. At such inquiry evidence shaU bc heard as to such of the aUegatiDus as are not adinitted and fhe person charged shall be entifled to cross exaaune fhe'witiiess, to give evidence iii, person, fo produce docunientaiy evidence, if any, and to have such witness caBed as heiaaywish: / Provided fhat the Euquiry OflBcer may, for reasons to be recorded ia writing, refuse to catl awitriess. (7) At the conclusion of the iaquiiy, the Enquiry Officer shall prepare a report of fhe mquiry, recoiriiag his findiD^ p^^ chai^es togpther with reasons fherefore. r'lt" •&- (8) The proceediags condueted against fhe peisons chfli^ed shaB contain a sufficient record of (i) fhe chai^es fi-amed agaiast such person aad fhe statement ofallegatious; (ii) thewritten stateinentofdefeiice-iE'aay; (iii) fhe oral evidence taken in fhe course of fhe iaquiry; (iv) ftie docuiaeD.tsuy evidence coasidered.in fh.e course of the inquuy; ^ (v) the orders, ifany, niade by fhe Enquuy OfBcer or the discipUnary aufhorily as the case inay be wifh regard to the inquiry; (vi) a report settiug out the findings on each charge and fhe reasous fherefore. (9) the Enquiiy OfBcer, if he is other than the disciplmaiy authorily, shaUsubmit the records ofthe proceedings mentioned in clause (8) above to the disciplmaiy authorily without recommendation relatmg to fhe penalty to be imposed. Ttie discipltaaiy aufhorityShaU considcr fhe record offhe enquiiy and its findiags on each charge, having regaid to the fiiidings on the chaiges and the record (iffhe proc^edings) ifheis ofthe opinion fhat any of fhe penalties specified ifi ctenises (iv) to (vii) of rule 5 should be iiuposed, it shatl fumish to fhe persou charged a copy of the report of the Enquuy Officer, and where fhe disciplmaty authority is not the Enquuy Officer a statcinent of its fmdiags togefher wifh brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings ofthc Enquiiy Officer. (10) The disciplinary authorily shall consider fhe represenlatiDn, if any, inade by the person charged in respouse to fhe notice aad deteroune fhe penally, if any, should be unposed aud shaU. pass appiopriate order on the case. (11) The orders passed by fhe disciplinary authority shaU be commnnicated to fhe niember of fhe Paachayat Semce, who shaB also be suppUed wifh a copy offhe report ofthe Enquuy Officer an where, disciplinaiy authoiity is hot fhe Enquiiy JOfBcer, a slatement of its findings together with fhe brief reasons for disagreeineut, if any, wifh the findings of fhe Bnquuy OfiGcer, unless they have abeady beeu suppUed to the peraou chai^ed." W'^SSWmS9wiVWWSS' \- 10. The coafeiitk>n of the respondents ttiat •fte petitioner was holdting a teinpoiary post, as sluA itoenqmiy was liecessary, as thetenriiliation order was not punitive and it was terminatibD. sunpliciter in tenns of fhe appoiatment order caaiiot be aCGCpted. On perusal of ftie papers it is clear fhat itwas not a teniunation suripliciter but ffae termm.atiDB. orderwas passed onfhebasis ofcertaia aUegationswhichwere fourid proved by fhe Depuly Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Departinent. The general body of the Gram faachayat has passed the resolution on fhe basis of the letter dated 21.7,2003 oftheDeputy Director, Panchayat and Sociat Welfare, hence it could not be held that it was a tennination suapliciter. 11. The Supreme Court'm the caseofAnoopJiuswalVs.OovernmMit 6f India and another {(1984) 2 SCC 369} has observed in paia 12, as linder:- ^ • ; ' ! . . • • : :! ' ! ' "13. It is, therefore, now weUsettIed that where tiie form ofthe order is inerely a cam.ouflage for ^&^oFder of disirusaal for nuseonduct it is always opea to the court before which the orderis challenged to go faehiad fhe form and ascertaui fhe true chaiacter ofthe order. IfftiecourthoMsthattheorder though in ffae foaai is inerety a deteniunation 6f einployaient is ia realily a cloak for an order of punislunent, &e covst would not be debarred, inerely because of the form of (Ue order, in giving effect to fhe rights coDferTedbylaroupontheeiDpIiyee. 12. The Supreme Court m the<ase oflndra Pal Gnpta Vs. M Comxnittee, Model Inter CoUege, Thbra { (1984) 3 SGC 384^ has "'observed in paragraphs 10 and 11., as imder:- "lO. It is seen fioin fUe letter dated June 30, 1969 by';'which thfi services ofthe appeUant weis feTminated that the resotatirin ofthe Managmg Coinlmttee dated Api^37, 1969 is made a pa^ treating if aa ecsl eiiclosure t&.fBHt tett^ 'I^^^^^re actually begins wifh. a refereiice tp thfe i^port.of the Maiiager, and stattes; thattliefactseoiitauieduTthieieport^re^E^^ s interests of the ulstitution". It furfher refers to the fa.ct that fhe appellant'was asfeed tt) ^ve ius explanation. tb the atlegatious made in the said report. That report stated; It is also evideut fhat the seriousness of the lapses is enough to justi&' dismissal but no edticational institution shouUtake fhatbotheratkin. 11. The above report was the real foundation-on wliiGh the decision of fhe Managing CoHUnittee was based. This M a case where the order oftjenmaation issued te merely a camdiiflage for aa order iinposiag fhe penaUy of terniittatk)n of serviee ou fhe grouiid ofnascouduct............... 13, The Supreme Court m fhe case ofRadheyShyam.GupfeaVs. U. P. State Agro Iadus*ries Corporatioa Itd. and another {(1999) 2 SCC 21}hasobservedinpara34,asunder:- "34. But in cases where the tenaination ispreceded byan enquiiy and evidcuce is received aad fiadiags as to misconduct of a defuutive nature are arrived at behiiid the back of the officer and wher& on the basis of such a report, the tenniriatkuL onler is issued, such aa prder wiU be violativ^of ttie pruiciples of iiatural ^ "-.-^. '• '• "•• : '•• '. • ." '•': •' justice inasniuch as the puTpose of fhe etlquiry is to find ont th.e tnith ofthe allegations with a view to punish him. and not merely to gather evidence for a fature regular (lepartmental enquiry. In such cases, the termioation is to be treated as based or founded upon mis<x>nduct and wfflbe pUnitive.'' The Supreme Court ia the case of Dipti Prakash Banetjee Vs. l? Satyendra Math Bose Natioaal Ctentre for Basic ScienceS, Galcntta and otbers {(1999) 3 SCG 60) hasobserved in para35,as under;- "35 Tlie above decision ra, iD. our view; a clear authonly for fhe propositioa fhat the material which amounts to stiguia need notbe contained ia fhe order ofterminatipn of the probationerbut might be conteiaed ia any docuinent referred to in the termination order or iu its acmexures. Obviousfy, such a document couM be asked» for or caSedfoi by aay future eiaployerofthe pK>batioIi)er.|InSueIi a case, fhe order of teniunatiou. would. stanii vitiated oa the gEound. fhat no regulareiiquiry was GOndueted.......'' J. fe 15. The SupreiBe Courtia the ease ofNar SU^i Pal Vs. Union OfIniUa and others {(2000) 3 SCC 588} has faeld as uader:- The appeUant, althpugh a casual labour, had acquired tempQrary status. Once an employee attains the ''teiaporaiy" status, he becomes entifled to certain benefits one of which is that he becomes eatitled to the constitutioaal piotection eayis^ed by Artiple 311 of fhe Constitution and ofher articles dealiag wifh services under ftie Union bf India. The services were tenninated on account of tfie aUegation of assault made against the appeUant. TlieOtderoftemunatiounu tfae instant case, canaot be treated to be a simple oider of retrenchnieiit. It was aa oider passed by way of puiusluneBt and, fherefore, was att order of dMmissal which, having been passed on the basis qf preliminaiy inquixy and ^ wifyout holding a regiilar departmental inquuy, caDnot be srustaiiied." 16. Thc Supreme Court ia the case ofCIiandra Prahash Shahi Vs. State of V.P. aad othCTS { (2000) 5 SCC 152} faas obsewed in para 12, as uader:- .x;,^ ' . ' "12. Now, it is weU setfled thatttiig'jtemporarygovemiaent servants or probationers are as inuch entitled to fhe protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution as ttie peniiaaeat emplpyees despite fhe fact that teniporaTy goveEryiient servauts have no right to hold the post aad fheir services are tiable to be tenainated at any tune by giving them a monfh's notice without assigning any reason either iu: tenas of the confeact of service or under the ?? relevaat statutoiy rules regulating the tenns and couditioris pf such service. The courts can, therefore, lift the veil of aa innocuously-woried order to look at fhe real face ofthe order aad to find out whettierit is an ianoGentas worded. (See: PaFShotaui Lal.Dtungra v. Union of India.) It was exp]ained m this decision that iueiSciency, negligence or miscouduct may have beeri the factors for induciag fhe Govemaient to terminate the services ofa temporary einployee uader fhe terms of fhe contract or under fhe stetutory Service Rules regulatmg the terms and conditions of semce which, to put it diffeFenfty:, aiay ttave been the motive for tenniaatirtg the servfces but the motive by itsetf dcies not flialEe fhe •i^r. B?i 'sss 10 order punitive UBlEss the ordcr was "fbunded" on tfaose factQis^or other disqualifieatioiis.'' 17. Tfae Supneme Court ia fhe case of State of Puujab and otllers Ws. Balbir Singh {(2004) 11 SGC743} has observed in paia7,aa imder: - ^. 18. ^ "7. Thus fhe principle that iu order to deteriuine whefher the miscoiiduEtis motiveorfi>uDjdation<rford®roftermmat^^ to be applied is teask the qu^s^^ to wliat was the "object of the enquiiy". If an enquiry or au assessin^^ is done with the objecf offindulg Qut any misconduct on ffae part of fhe employee aad for that reason his serrices are termiaated, ttaen it would be punitive in nature. On fhe other hand, if such an. enq'uuy or aa as^essiuent is aiined at deteniuiung fhe suitabiUly ofan employee &r a particUlar job, such teiiiunatron wozild be terminatioa siinpliciter and uot punitiv& ia nature. This prinGiple was laid down by Shah, J. (as he(heu was) as early as 1961 in fhe caseofState ofOrissa v. Ram Narayan Das7. [t was held fhat oue shdiild look mto "objecf orpurpose of {h&enquiry* aad not merely lioU the termination to be punitive ineret^ beeause of ail antecedent enquiry. Whether it (order of tenniqation) amounts to au order of dismissal depends upon fhe Datui&*o^tfae enqyiry, if any, the proceedings taken fherein and fhe SUbstaace of the final order passed on such enquuy,........'' In. fhe instent case tfa.e facts of fhe ease clearly establish feat the tenniaatiDn of'fhs serviGes of the petitionier was not a termmatioD. sunpliciter but ou the basis of fhe aUeged u~regularities and misconduct coiruiutted byfhe petitioner. 19. It is furtheradmitted by aU ttie parties fhat the procediire for holdiag an enquiiy is prescribed under Sufe 7^^^o^ 1999 for unposition of major penally, that has not been foUowed. Hence, fhe terminati.on is bad and vitiated pa fhe grouiid of non-compliance of the statutoiy provisions anddeiualoffheprmciplesofnaturaljustiG^ It aiuounts to inlracticm ^of not onl^ 7 of fhe Riiles 1999 but the provisions ofArtk^Sll (2) ofthe C^MistitutK^ tf India also. The cwder is m' fact penal in iiatuT& haviiig Gi'inl ^^ 11 A 20. G. 23 23 consequences and as such fhe eKborate provision OfSection 7 ofthe Rules 1999 was applicable in the case of tiie petitioner before termlnatinglusservices. Wifh regard to the avaUabitily of fhe atteniative reinedy it is well settled fhat the rule of exclusion ofwrit jurisdiction by ayaflabflity of an altemative remedy is a tule of discretion and apt one of the coinpulsion. In the present case the facts are not disputed. Theentiie case rests bn the inliactiou of constitutional protection prescribed under Article 311 (2) of fhe Constitution of India and noii-appUeation offhe stetutoiy pFovisions; as such the altematwe remedy may not be aproperfonun. The Suprenie Court ia~fhe case ofHarbaaslal Saliaiia aad anothw Vs. Indian OU Corporation Ltd and others {(^503) 2 SCC 107}inpara7 hasheldasunder:- ''7. ........suffice it to obserye that the rule of exelusion of wnt jurisdietion by availabilily of aQ ^ltemative reniedy is a rule of disGretion and not one of Gompulslod&In an appropriate case, ia spite of availabitily of the sdtemative reiaedy, fhe H^h Court inay still exercise its writjurisdiGtioa in at least three contingencies: (i) where thewrit petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (i^ where fhere is faUure of priuciples of natural justice; or (ii^ where fhe orders or proceedings are whpUy withoutjurisdiction offheviresofaiiAct is challenged............." V'-^ A Divisioa Bench ofthis Courtm fhe case ofGanMBnkIi Sing^i Hora Vs. State ofCtoI»aUisgatliandothets{2004 (3) M.P.H.T. 2& (CG)} Uas foUowed fhe dicta laid down by the Supreine Court in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia(Supi^. / For the Feasons and the discussions made hereinabove, and fhe dicta laid dowu by fhe STipTeine €oUrf?invarious cases, cited above, thje order of terDlniatJf^^dated ^.9.3(X)3 is bad and is quashed. Qn fhe question of back 'wages, no foundati<^^^^^^ been |latd tp establish fhe fect that whetber 1& petitmner^^^ .;-<;--' IISHSI^B WKSBKS"'— 'hakur 24. elsewhere or iaot durmg flus period.^ E^ othfirwise ]Eeeping?iu view fhat thfiteiTiimation^G'Td^hasbeeuvitiatedDot on merit iMijtgoa ^W^SiSS account of non-compliance of the statutoiy prcwisions befQre,|g|g|i ^'SiSSSS termiuating fhe services of the petitioner, 30%,ba]C^ wages wo'uliEtl)^gBg| sufficieiit in fhe iiiteFest ofjustice. ® Accordnigly, thc writ petition is atlpwed. No order as •Eb costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agiiiftotri Judge •te» &: II li