Gujarat High Court High Court

=========================================Appearance vs The on 15 January, 2010

Gujarat High Court
=========================================Appearance vs The on 15 January, 2010
Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&Nbsp;Honourable Bankim.N.Mehta,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

LPA/72/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 72 of 2010
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11280 of 2009
 

With


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 208 of 2010
 

In
 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 72 of 2010
 

=========================================
 

SWATI
MOHANBHAI PATEL 

 

Versus
 

AHMEDABAD
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 

 

=========================================Appearance
: 
MR SHALIN N
MEHTA for
the Appellant 

 

 
=========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 15/01/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)

Heard
the learned counsel for the appellant.

The
appellant was on probation with the respondent Municipal Corporation.
The services of the appellant were dispensed with as the same have
not been found to be satisfactory.

The
case of the appellant was that prior to termination of her services,
being unsatisfactory, a show cause notice was issued to her and she
replied. Her reply was not accepted. However, her probation period
was extended during that period. The case of the appellant is that
the foundation of the order is non-acceptance of her explanation.

We
have been taken through the order of dispensing with the services of
the appellant which speaks of unsatisfactory services.

The
learned Single Judge has found that the order of dispensing with the
services of the appellant is not stigmatic and in our view rightly
so because the order is plain and simple. The appellant was on
probation and it cannot be said that the foundation of the order was
her explanation, which has not been accepted. That may be the object
but not foundation. In that view of the matter, we are not
inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

The
appeal has no force and the same is dismissed.

In
view of the dismissal of the appeal, Civil Application does not
survive and is disposed of accordingly.

(BHAGWATI
PRASAD, J.)

(BANKIM
N. MEHTA, J.)

omkar

   

Top