SUKHVINDER SINGH Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks restoration of his service on the post of Assistant Mechanic. Petitioner also seeks directions against the respondent to produce his original service records and the original record of show cause notice/memo issued and the subsequent proceeding, if any, conducted by the respondent against the petitioner for passing the impugned order dated 1.2.2000.

(2.) . Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present petition are as under: The petitioner was working with Airport Authority of India, Safdarjung Airport New Delhi and was appointed as Assistant Mechanic after clearing the departmental exams on 14.6.1999 and since then he had been working as such. In the beginning, the petitioner got this job on compassionate ground as his late father was working with the respondent authority and after his death he was duly considered for the job on the basis of the application moved by his mother on compassionate ground. On 30.5.1996 he was offered a job of Assistant Mechanic on contract basis under the Employment Assistance Scheme on consolidated salary of Rs. 1500/ - by Dy. Director of Equipment vide letter No. EST -37/96/293 -95 and along with the same terms and conditions were also supplied to him. As per the terms and conditions of the letter of offer, he was subjected to medical and police verification which was duly done as per Government norms and finally on 18.7.1996 an acceptance letter was issued to him for joining his duty within fifteen days. In response to the same, on 26.7.1996 he joined his duty as Assistant Mechanic at Electrical and Mechanical Workshop Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi for a period of six months on contract basis and this period was extended and reviewed by the respondent after getting internal opinion. During this period of contract service of the petitioner, certain vacancies of Assistant Mechanic arose which were to be filled up by the Departmental Candidates of Group D category of the respondent authority and the petitioner competed for the said post on 15.9.1998 along with other departmental candidates and was successful in the same. On 21.4.1999 he was called for practical test/interview along with other candidates. On 14.6.1999 he along with others was appointed to the post of Assistant Mechanic and was directed to undergo training for a period of six weeks. Vide letter dated 25.10.1999 the petitioner was again subjected to medical report from Medical Incharge Medical Centre, Airport Authority of India, INA Colony, New Delhi. In the meanwhile, on 10.2.2000 all of a sudden the petitioner received a letter of termination which as per him was completely unconstitutional, illegal, malafide, biased and is without application of mind. Aggrieved by the said act of the respondent authority the petitioner has preferred this petition.

(3.) . Mr. S.N. Kalra, counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the respondent intentionally did not produce the report regarding police verification made with regard to the character and antecedents of the petitioner in the year 1996. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent has deliberately not considered the previous record of the petitioner which would have clearly shown that the antecedents of the petitioner were completely clean. Counsel further submits that the order passed by the respondent is in violation of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Counsel also submits that the principles of natural justice were violated by the respondent as no inquiry was held against the petitioner before taking the said decision of terminating the petitioner from his service. Counsel also submits that the petitioner was given appointment on compassionate basis and he was not found involved in any case of moral turpitude and the case in which an FIR was registered against him was relating to some fight with a neighbor which was later on compromised.