SUNIL KUMAR VERMA Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ appeal takes exception to order dtd. 10/1/2006 (Annexure-A-1) passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3718 of 2001, whereby, the petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed against termination of his services.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the appellant applied for appointment on the post of Water-man under the establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Chhindwara. Pursuant to his application, a call letter dtd. 25/7/1994 was issued for his interview. After interview, the appellant was selected and vide order dtd. 29/7/1994 (Annexure-R-1), he was appointed as full time Water-man against Contingency Fund. The appellant further states that having found his service satisfactory, he was given promotion on the post of Peon vide order dtd. 1/5/1996. He states that he continued to work on the post of Peon. He was on continuous duty till 2/1/2000. However, on account of a false case registered against him at the instance of one D.R. Baghel, who was working as Naib Nazir, the appellant was taken into custody. When the appellant was released, he immediately, submitted an application in prescribed format for earned leave. However, without considering his application vide order dtd. 20/1/2000 (Annexure-P-1) his services have been terminated. The appellant filed an appeal to the appellate Authority which has also been rejected vide order dtd. 25/11/2000 (Annexure-P-2). The appellant, therefore, approached this Court in writ petition which has also been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appellant is in the instant writ appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that a perusal of the order of termination dtd. 20/1/2020 shows that the same is a stigmatic. According to him, without following the principles of natural justice, the services of the appellant could not have been terminated. He further states that the order is passed on 20/1/2000 alleging his unauthorized absence with effect from 3/1/2000. Such an order from the face of it is a stigmatic and hence, the same should have been interfered with by the learned Single Judge. He also submits that the order of his promotion dtd. 1/5/1996 clearly states that he became regular employee of the respondents.