stipulation mentioned in the appointment letter, cannot be terminated, as he cannot be treated to have incurred any disqualifications on account of fact that while working in the earlier organization, Inquiry was conducted for an incident, in case, the Vigilance report was submitted before the earlier organization on that basis, he was placed under suspension and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent. The Court has held that if there was any stipulation relating to misconduct connected with previous employment his tenure could be cuts short and the Central Government could exercise their power, but in absence of such provision can a statutory appointment be cut short, specially, when the incumbent has not incurred any disqualification with present organization. It may be embarrassing but the statutory provision cannot be ignored, if the provision of disqualification and removal were there, perhaps something could be done but in face of clear provisions bearing on the subject, it will be travesty of justice to cut short the statutory appointment of an incumbent. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court further held that pleasure appointments are such where incumbent are appointed at the pleasure of the President, like Governors. As against this, statutory appointment are made under the statute and the service conditions of the incumbents are governed by the statute, they are not pleasure appointments and the Governor appointed under the
