NANDKUMAR RAJARAM PARVE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner on acquiring the qualification of XIIth standard pass came to be appointed as a Junior Clerk on temporary basis with effect from 1st June, 1990 and he joined the office of the Director General of Police. He was a candidate sponsored by the Employment Exchange, but did not go through the Maharashtra Public Service Commission examination. Though his initial appointment was for three months, he continued upto 9th May, 1996. On 17th February, 1995 the Government of Maharashtra took a policy decision for regularization of temporarily appointed clerks in various Government establishments located in Mumbai city between the period from 10th January, 1990 to 31st December, 1992, in the post of Clerk/Clerk-cum-Typist/Typist. The M.P.S.C., on 27th March, 1995 conducted a special competitive examination for all these temporary appointees appointed between 10th January, 1990 to 31st December, 1992. The M.P.S.C. forwarded a list of 107 such appointees who were found to be successful for regularization in Government service as Clerk/Clerk-cum-Typist/Typist in different establishments located within the limits of Greater Mumbai and the petitioner was amongst these 107 persons recommended by the M.P.S.C. The State Government, therefore, issued a resolution on 9th June, 1996 for the regularization of these 107 Clerk/Clerk-cum-Typist/Typist/Typists and their names were set out in Schedule "A" to the said G.R. From the office of the Director General of Police there were three Clerks, whose services were sought to be regularized and the name of the petitioner was at serial No. 2. On 5th August, 1996 an order came to be passed from the office of the Director General of Police, Mumbai for the regularization of all these three clerks i.e. Ms. P.R. Chougule, Shri S.N. Katkar and Shri N.R. Parve (the present petitioner). The said order also stated that the seniority of the three clerks so appointed would be determined in terms of para.2 of the G.R. Dated 9th June, 1996 and the seniority list was published thereafter showing the petitioner at serial No. 3 and his initial date of appointment was shown as 1st June, 1990. This publication of seniority clearly indicated that the petitioner was treated to be in continuous service from 1st June, 1990. He was also granted his annual increment of Rs. 20/- as per the order dated 10th July, 1997. All of a sudden an order came to be issued on 12th November, 1997 thereby discontinuing the employment of the petitioner and without giving the prescribed notice of one month, but was paid the salary of notice period. This order came to be challenged before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal under O.A. No. 626 of 1997.

(2.) The State Government opposed the said O.A., by filing reply. The Tribunal by its order dated 26th June, 1998 was pleased to dismiss the Original Application and the interim relief granted earlier also was directed to be vacated. While issuing notice, this Court by its order dated 28th July, 1998 directed the parties to maintain status quo and while admitting the petition on 29th August, 1998 by way of interim relief the termination order dated 12th November, 1997 came to be stayed. Consequently, the petitioner has continued in service all along. The Tribunal set out the reasons in paragraph 5 of its order for dismissal of the Original Application as follows:

(3.) The only question that arises for our consideration is whether the order dated 12th November, 1997 which is an order of discharge simplicitor from the regular employment of the Government is sustainable. The Tribunal held that though the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in ad hoc capacity from time to time, his regular appointment commenced only from 9th July, 1996 and consequently he was required to be considered on probation which period would end only after 2 years. The Tribunal also noted that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498, 304-B read with 34 of the I.P.C. The Tribunal further proceeded to consider as to whether the petitioner was unfit to be retained in service when during the period of probation a criminal case was registered against him. It noted that the impugned order was non-stigmatic and the petitioner was not a confirmed employee and, therefore, discharge simplicitor could not be faulted with.