After considering the submissions of counsel on either side, we are inclined to agree with the submissions made by the counsel for the Board. Office order dated 15.01.1985, vide which services of the employee were terminated, has already been reproduced above. It states, in no uncertain terms, that his services are not required consequent upon the abolition of post of the Chartered Accountant. Once it is accepted that the post had been abolished, the question as to whether the employee was working on temporary basis or on regular basis would become inconsequential. Likewise, whether this post was created because of World Bank project or otherwise also falls into insignificance. It is trite law that on abolition of a post when the services of an employee are not required, even when he is a permanent employee, his services can be dispensed with. Therefore, no fault can be found in the action of the Board in taking the decision to terminate the services of the employee. However, it is also not in dispute that the employee was entitled to one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof. In the instant case, realizing that this condition had to be complied with, the Board itself had sent a cheque representing one month's salary, however, this cheque was bounced back which led to the effect that one month's notice for terminating the services was not given. This makes the termination bad on this ground.
