The termination from service simplicitor does not get vitiated for want of one month notice as provided under sub-rule (a) of rule 12 of the Rules of 1960. The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view.

SANJAY YADAV, J.

Petitioner seeks review of the order dated 29-6-2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 119/2017.

2. The petition was directed against the order dated 2-1-2015 which is in the following terms:-

^^uo vkj{kd 790 foosd 'kekZ ftyk iqfyl cy fHk.M dh lsokvksa dh vko';drk ugha gksus ls fnukad 2-1-2015 ds vijkUg ls mldh lsok;sa lekIr dh tkrh gSA**

3. The petitioner was appointed by order dated 15-3-2013 as Constable in grade Rs. 5200-20200 + grade pay Rs. 1900/-. The appointment was temporary and subject to certain terms and condition including that:-

1- e/;Áns'k 'kklu ds 'kkldh; lsok ¼vLFkkbZ@v/kZLFkkbZ lsok fu;e 1960½ ds mifu;e 12 ds vuqlkj vH;FkhZ dh lsok;sa fdlh Hkh le; mHk; i{kksa ds }kjk ,d ekg dk uksfVl nsdj ;k mlds ,ot esa ,d ekg dk osru@HkRrs dk Hkqxrku dj dHkh Hkh lekIr dh tk ldrh gSaA

2- ;g fu;qfDr iw.kZ:i ls vLFkkbZ gSA dk;Z larks"ktud u ik;s tkus vFkok 'kkldh; lsok ;k in ij mi;qDr u ik;s tkus ij lsok,sa dHkh Hkh fcuk uksfVl fn;s lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA

3- vH;FkhZ ds }kjk p;u ds laca/k esa ÁLrqr fd;s x;s ¼'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk@tkfr Áek.k i= ;k vU;½ nLrkostksa dh tkap djk;h tkosxhA ;fn Áek.k i= xyr ;k voS/k ik;k tkrk gS] rks vH;FkhZ dh lsok,a rRdky ÁHkko ls lekIr dh tkosaxh ,oa oS/kkfud dkuwuh dk;Zokgh dh tk,xhA

4. Taking into consideration that the services of the petitioner were dispensed with by an innocuous order during probation, the challenge was negatived.

5. It is urged that since the termination of the petitioner was not without foundation because the petitioner was proceeded against vide crime No. 2/2015 and charge-sheeted for an offence under sections 417, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and sections 3(d)(1) and 2/4 of the Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examination Act for his selection in the written test of PCRT-2012 with the help of racketeers/middlemen/impersonators, incumbent it was upon the Authorities to have conducted an enquiry and afforded an opportunity of hearing, because dispensing of service was not innocuous but stigmatic. It is contended that the Court ought to have lifted the veil.

6. Secondly, it is contended that since the petitioner's services were governed by Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi Permanent Services) Rules, 1960 (For short ‘the Rules of 1960). It is urged that rule 12(a) contemplates one month's notice and since the termination of service of the petitioner was not in consonance with rule 12(a) of the Rules of 1960, the same was void ab initio. This aspect, it is urged, has been glossed over. Petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in W.P. No. 11353/2015, Krishna Kumar Yadav v. Madya Pradesh Professional Examination Board decided on 5-8-2015 and W.P. No. 7529/2015, Girraj Singh Gurjar v. State of M.P. decided on 15-6-2016 to bring home the submission that non-giving of thirty days prior notice would vitiate the order.

7. Taking up the second submission first, sub-rule (a) of rule 12 of the Rules of 1960 provides for as under:

“12(a) Subject to any provision contained in the order of appointment or in any agreement between the Government and the temporary Government servant who is not in quasi-permanent service shall be liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant:

Provided that the services of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith and on such termination, the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before such termination or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.

Provided farther that the payment of allowances shall be subject to the conditions under which such allowances are admissible.”

Thus, though it is imperative for the appointing authority to give notice to a Government servant who is not in