termination order is only a clock for an order of
punishment. [707C-D]
1.3 Besides, the termination is also liable to be
quashed ... Constitution, then such a termination is liable to be
quashed. In the above mentioned decisions, the impugned
termination order was accordingly quashed
termination orders were not quashed, L.P.A. has
been filed. Appeals were also filed by the State against the orders
quashing termination orders ... genuinely
appointed. In other cases though petitioner‟s earlier termination
order had been quashed by this Court but they were not allowed to
join
order dated 29-2-1984 allowed the writ
petitions and quashed the termination orders. It is against
the view taken by the learned Single Judge ... India
thereafter. On this line of reasoning the High Court
quashed the termination orders.
6.Article 14 provides that the State shall not deny
learned single Judge, by a common order dated 14.05.1996, thereby quashing the termination order dated 12.05.1992, with a further direction to the Pondicherry Government ... Government, challenging the common order passed by the learned single Judge, through his common order dated 14.05.1996, quashing the termination orders dated
this Court by an order dated 25.7.2003 in a
batch of writ applications quashing the order of
termination of the petitioner as well with certain ... disposed of by
a common judgment dated 8.9.2003 quashing the order of
termination of the service of the petitioner in a batch case,
CWJC
issue such order. The said writ application was disposed of by order dated 12.3.2002 quashing the order of the petitioner's termination and directing ... termination orders have been quashed. Series of the said orders have been annexed with W.P.(S) No. 1658/2004. The said orders passed
According to the petitioners, the order of termination is illegal, unconstitutional and null and void. The order of termination is arbitrary and violative of Articles ... order simpliciter, the Tribunal committed an error in law by quashing the termination order. In reply the contention of the learned Counsel for respondent
embezzlement and without
enquiry, termination of employment is patently illegal. Consequently, the impugned
termination order dated 13.07.2004 has been quashed extending liberty to the
appellant ... that
account justifying termination was impregnable. Therefore, the learned Single Judge
has fallen in error having quashed the termination order. That apart, since the
appointment
view that the order of termination is
a stigmatic one. Hence, both the impugned orders
dated 26.9.2014 and order dated 6.5.2015 passed by
the appellate ... deem it appropriate to order reinstatement of the
petitioner.
8.7 However, considering the fact that the
order of termination is quashed as the same
Court finds that the order of
termination simplicitor in reality was punitive
and stigmatic, the order is required to be quashed
and set aside ... termination of the
petitioner's services is found to be illegal and,
therefore, the termination order is required to be
quashed
