In this writ petition concerning alleged oral termination, the Acting Chief Justice dismissed the petition and ruled that termination must be communicated in writing if services are no longer required.
The writ petition is dismissed; respondents must intimate termination in writing before ceasing services.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
Writ Petition No.35161 of 2012
ORDER:
The action of the respondents in orally terminating the petitioner is questioned in this writ petition. Pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court dated 14.11.2012, the petitioner was continued in service.
Learned Standing Counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C. would submit that no oral order of termination was passed against the petitioner.
We see no reason, therefore, to keep the writ petition pending on the file of this Court. Suffice it to make it clear that in case the petitioner’s services are no longer required, the respondents shall intimate him in writing.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall be
also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ)
02nd December, 2016 JSU
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
Writ Petition No.35161 of 2012
Date: 02.12.2016
JSU
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the oral termination of the petitioner was legal?
PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
