DHANANJAY Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILA PARISHAD JALNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was appointed in Zilla Parishad, Jalna on May 13, 1985 on temporary basis for a period of one year. After expiry of that period, he was again given a fresh appointment for one more year with effect from May 14, 1986, after giving a break for one day. He was placed under suspension on July 1, 1987 on the ground that he had paid an amount of Rs. 18,000/- to a contractor when the actual cost of repairs was only Rs. 8,000/-. In the very suspension order, an enquiry also was directed in regard to the allegation of payment of Rs. 18,000/- as against the actual cost of Rs. 8,000/- spent towards repairs. A complaint also was made against him on criminal side in respect of the same allegation. Ultimately, after trial, he was acquitted. The respondent passed an order terminating the services of the appellant. Aggrieved by this order of termination of services, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court, after considering the respective contentions of the parties, finding no merit in the writ petition, dismissed the same. Hence, the appellant is before us in this appeal.

(2.) Shri S. K. Dholakia, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, urged that the order of termination of services of the appellant though in terms is stated to be simpliciter, but, in fact, it is a result of the alleged misconduct against the appellant and, in other words, is stigmatic. In support of this submission, the learned counsel stated that the very order of suspension shows that an enquiry was directed against the alleged misconduct with a view to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant to remove him from services; even a criminal complaint was filed to proceed against him and, in fact, he was prosecuted also pursuant to the complaint. Learned counsel submitted that the High Court committed an error in placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Bihari Lal Sidhana (1997) 4 SCC 385. He added that whether the order of termination of services in a given case is simpliciter or stigmatic depends on the facts of each case and, according to him, on the facts of the present case, the order of termination of services was not simpliciter but it was punitive attaching stigma to the appellant.

(3.) In opposition, the learned counsel for the respondent made submissions supporting the impugned order and reiterated the very submissions that were made before the High Court.