NACHATTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question of law has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant to impugn the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot. The services of the appellant, who was a Work Charge employee, were terminated on 1.1.1979. He had accordingly challenged this order on the ground that it is illegal, void and incorrect. The submission by the counsel is that the order was punitive in nature and so could not have been passed without issuing show cause notice and without serving the charge sheet on him. The service of the appellant was statedly terminated without following any procedure. The order of termination was accordingly challenged by filing the civil suit.

(2.) UPON being put to notice, the respondent-State resisted the suit. Respondent-State raised a preliminary objection that the suit was barred by time. The plea of territorial jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit was also raised. It was further pleaded that the services of the appellant were terminated in accordance with the rules applicable to the work charge employees. It was further stated that the appellant used to remain absent from work and so his services were terminated. It is pleaded that there was no requirement of issuing any show cause notice as the rules contained in Civil Services Rules were not applicable to work charge employees. Accordingly, it was urged that there was no need to hold any inquiry and the respondents were well within their rights to terminate the services of the appellant. The suit was tried on the following issues: 1. Whether the order dated 01.01.1979 is null and void? OPP 2. Whether the suit is within time? OPP 3.Whether the plaintiff is barred by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 4.Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit? OPP 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 6. Whether a valid notice under Section 80 CPC has been served? OPP 7.Relief.

(3.) THERE can not be much dispute to the proposition of law as would emerge from the above noted pronouncements but in all these cases, there was no dispute that the orders were stigmatic and it was thus held that such orders could not be passed in violation of principles of natural justice. To know if an order is stigmatic, it is to be seen as to what is the foundation of the order. If the reason for which the order is passed was only a motive or inducive factor, then it can not be termed as stigmatic order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and another,(1999) 2 SCC 21 observed that there are two lines of cases, which deal with the question. In certain cases of temporary servants and probationers, the Court has taken a view that if an exparte enquiry or report is the motive for the termination order, then the termination is not to be called punitive merely because the principles of natural justice have not been followed. The second line of cases are where the Court has held that the facts revealed in enquiry are not the motive but the foundation of the termination of services of the temporary servants or probationers and hence, punitive and, thus, the principles of natural justice would have to be followed. After dealing with all aspects in this regard and after making reference to two lines of cases decided in the field. The observations on the basis of various judgments could be gisted as under: