The central legal point established is that termination under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 must comply with the requirement to pay the sum equivalent to the amount of pay and allowance for the notice period.

The learned counsel for the petitioner is not ready. Therefore, I am constrained to hear the learned counsel appearing for the respondents at length.

2. Both the writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner.

3. In brief, the petitioner, who was recruited to the post of Assistant Director in National Power Training Institute under the respondents, qualified with B.E. (Instrumentation), by the proceedings of the first respondent dated 8.4.1996 and completed her probation period of one year on 22.4.1997 itself, was terminated by the proceedings of the first respondent dated 26.8.1997, which reads as follows:

" National Power Training Institute

A Government of India Society

--------------------------------------------------

No.4(A)/169/96-NPTI/HQ/2841 Dated:- 26.8.97

Order of Termination of Service issued under the Proviso to Sub-rule(1) of Rule 5' of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

-----

In pursuance of the Proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5' of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, I, V.K.Sood, Director General, NPTI, hereby terminate forthwith the services of Smt.S.Padmavathy, Asstt. Director (Tech./Faculty) and direct that she shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of her pay plus allowances for the period of Notice at the same rates at which she was drawing them immediately before the termination of her service, or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month. (emphasis supplied)

Sd/-

(V.K.SOOD)

Director General

Smt.S.Padmavathy

Asstt.Director (Tech./Faculty)

N.P.T.I.

RPTI, Neyveli."

4. Consequent to the said order of termination dated 26.8.1997, the second respondent issued a circular dated 8.9.1997 to all the sections of the Institute to initiate appropriate action if required with respect to the dues if any from the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of termination dated 26.8.1997 and the consequential circular dated 8.9.1997, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14057 of 1997 seeking a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in Proceedings No.RPTI/NEY/ADM/SP/97/3437 dated 8.9.1997 which has been passed pursuant to the order of the first respondent in Proceedings No.4(A)/169/96/NPTI/HQ/2841 dated 26.8.1997 and quash the same.

5. When the said writ petition came up before this Court on 12.9.1997 for admission, this Court ordered notice of motion returnable by four weeks and also granted interim stay, since the impugned order of termination had been passed without notice, as required under Section 5(1) of the Central Civil Services Rules (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (in short the "Rules").

6. The interim stay granted was subsequently vacated by an order of this Court dated 17.4.1998 on the ground that the stay granted on 12.9.1997 was not extended thereafter, however without going in to the merits of the case. Therefore, the first respondent, by proceedings dated 21/22.4.1998 informed the petitioner that she cannot attend the office and function as Assistant Director (Tech./Faculty) in the Institute and the said proceedings of the first respondent was duly communicated to the petitioner by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 23.4.1998 and hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6226 of 1998 seeking a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in No.4(A)/169/96-NPTI HQ/150 dated 21/22.4.1998 and the second respondent in No.RPTI/NEY/ADM/SP/320 dated 23.4.1998 and quash the same.

7. A detailed counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents in both the writ petitions, traversing the averments made by the petitioner on merits as well as with respect to the power to terminate the service of the petitioner without notice, by exercising the power under Rule 5(1) of the Rules.

8. A bare reading of the impugned proceedings dated 26.8.1997 makes it clear that the first respondent proposed to exercise the powers conferred un