STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SATYENDER SINGH RATHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Haryana and Director General, Health Services, Haryana call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the order of termination passed by the authorities was without legal sanction.

(2.) The background facts in a nutshell are as follows: Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the employee) was appointed as Medical Officer in the Directorate of Health Services, Haryana by an order dated 6-11-1997 on a fixed salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month for a period of six months from the date of joining. It was clearly indicated in the letter of appointment that the services of the employee being on contractual basis could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason with 24 hours notice from either side. By order dated 25-3-2002 services of the employee were terminated. The same was challenged before the High Court by filing a writ petition.

(3.) Before the High Court it was urged by the writ petitioner that the order of termination, though in the face of it appears to be termination simpliciter, was relatable to alleged misconduct and, therefore, was penal in nature. Reference was made to a decision of this Court in A.P. State Federation of Coop. Spinning Mills Ltd. and another vs. P.V. Swaminathan (2001) 10 SCC 83 to contend that the order of termination was founded on the alleged misconduct as stated in the order dated 25-3-2002. The formal order of termination involved adverse civil consequences. The stand of the opposite parties before the High Court (appellants herein) was that the misconduct may have provided a motive for the order of termination but not a foundation. The High Court by the impugned judgment held that the misconduct referred to was the foundation and not the motive. As the order involved civil consequences, therefore, the same could not have been passed without complying Principles of Natural Justice. The order was according to the High Court stigmatic. In the order passed by the State Government dated 25-3-2002 reference was made to the alleged misconduct of the employee and on the basis thereof the order of termination dated 11-4-2002 was passed. It was accordingly held that the employee was entitled to all the consequential benefits along with re-instatement. Liberty was, however, given to proceed further after complying with statutory rules governing service of the employees or the rules of natural justice as the case may be.