AMANPREET KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 27.09.2016 (Annexure P-6), vide which the services of the petitioner, who was working on the post of Panchayat Secretary, stand terminated during the probation period without giving any notice or affording her an opportunity of hearing, thus, violative of the principles of natural justice as also Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Petitioner, admittedly, was appointed on the post of Panchayat Secretary on compassionate basis on account of death of her father Karamjit Singh, who died on 16.07.1992 and was working on the post of Panchayat Secretary. She was appointed on temporary basis on 21.11.2011 on attaining the age of maturity and was serving the respondents. It so happened that an FIR was registered on 08.12.2012 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 120-B IPC and Section 13 (1) (c) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988, by the Vigilance Bureau at Mohali on the allegations of misappropriation, cheating and forgery against Amarjeet Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Karamjeet Singh, Amrik Singh, Suman, Lekh Raj and Harbilas. After the trial, accused were convicted by the Court. On the basis of the conviction of these persons, services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 27.09.2016 (Annexure P-6) by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab. It is asserted that the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate basis was based on forged signatures of the then Director, namely, Gurdev Singh Sidhu, IAS.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that prior to the passing of the order of termination, petitioner was neither given an opportunity of hearing nor any show cause notice was served upon her. The ground which has been taken by the respondents for such termination without notice that the petitioner was on probation for a period of two years and it is during this probation period, where she had been suspended, her services were terminated on conviction of the accused in the FIR. It is asserted that during the probation period, petitioner was not required to be given notice under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 and therefore, the order as has been passed by the respondents is in accordance with law. This the learned counsel for the petitioner contends is against the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Vijayakumaran C.P.V. Versus Central University of Kerala & others (2020 (1) SCT 773), where it has been held that the termination of a probationer, which is stigmatic in nature, cannot be justified merely on the ground that the employee was on probation. It would, therefore, be punitive in nature and thus, the order of such termination is unsustainable being violative of the statutory rules governing the service. His further assertion is that the order of termination of the petitioner has been passed while exercising the powers under Rule 5 (ix) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. According to the said Rules, an order passed under these provisions renders an employee unfit for appointment in future in Government service. He, therefore, contends that not only the order of termination is stigmatic in nature but it also debars the petitioner for appointment in Government service in future. This has been done without even giving a notice to the petitioner and is also violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, thus, unsustainable. Prayer has, thus, been made for setting aside the impugned order.