SUBHASH Vs. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point involved in the case is whether the services of the petitioner could be terminated taking recourse to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Temporary Civil Service Rules when in fact the action is taken against the petitioner on the basis of the report of the Enquiry held into the allegations levelled against him. The facts in short relevant for deciding this petition are :

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer on ad-hoc basis initially vide order dated 9th August, 1988. Petitioner joined the service on 12th August, 1988 and was posted in the Bridge Division-I of the respondent as Junior Engineer vide order dated 23rd August, 1988. Vide the order dated 19th April, 1989, the ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner was changed to appointment purely on temporary basis with prospects of further continuation depending upon the availability of post and completion of requisite formalities. By the same order 66 junior engineers were appointed on temporary basis and the name of the petitioner in this list, in order of seniority, was at S.No.11. The petitioner had alleged to have worked with sincerity, devotion to duty and with integrity as Junior Engineer in the area allotted to him and had alleged to have got prosecution launched against certain persons for unauthorised construction carried out by them in the South Zone. Certain complaints were received in the office against the petitioner for his allegedly being involved in huge unauthorised commercial construction in Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi. On the basis of the said complaint, respondent No.3 got all the premises inspected through the Executive Engineer who after inspection submitted his report on 16th June, 1990. The respondents without holding any further enquiry in the matter passed an order on 29th June, 1990 under sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 terminating the services of the petitioner by giving him one month's notice. This order has now been challenged by the petitioner by way of the present petition on the ground the order is not a simple order dispensing with the services of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not found suitable for the post but the same was punitive in nature and thus the same is wholly illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the procedure established by law.

(3.) Besides other grounds taken in the petition to challenge the aforesaid order of termination one of the grounds taken by the petitioner is that the order of termination under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules is not an order simpliciter but was pass in the colourable exercise of powers by the respondent and the same was punitive in nature. It is submitted that termination is based on findings of the enquiry into the allegations made in a private complaint received by the respondent against the petitioner and the petitioner has not been given any opportunity to reply to the allegations made in the said complaint and taking the same as true, the services of the petitioner have been terminated in an arbitrary manner. For this, reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Chandra Prakash Shahi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others-JT 2000 (5) SC 181.