work and no respect for the directions/ warnings issued by authorities. It is
absolutely clear that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner but
she showed no improvement. It seems she was absenting at her own whims
and fancies without bothering for the consequences.
21. In view of petitioner‟s unsatisfactory performance, I would agree with
the respondents that she could not have been confirmed.
22. On an independent scrutiny of the relevant documents on record as
discussed above, I am of the considered view that the order of termination
of the petitioner recorded by the competent authority purports to be in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the appointment of a temporary
government servant. Such termination is neither punitive nor stigmatic in
nature, nor is it in any event, actuated with any motive. The language of the
order clearly shows that it is termination simpliciter, based under Rule 5(1)
of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The notice
of termination issued by the respondents clearly states that the services of
the petitioner shall stand terminated w.e.f. the date of expiry of a period of
one month from the date on which the said notice was served on the
petitioner.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: April 06, 2016
W.P.(C) 3965/2003
SMT. SUMAN TANEJA
versus
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ANR. .
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH
