MANDEEP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated case of the petitioner, as can be gathered from the record is that Municipal Committee, Kalayat, District Kaithal had decided to engage a Junior Engineer against a sanctioned post under outsourcing policy Part-II. Accordingly, an advertisement was issued in the Newspaper; a selection committee interviewed prospective candidates; petitioner Mandeep was selected against the said post; he was issued appointment letter dtd. 11/1/2018 for a period of one year or till appointment of a regular employee; petitioner joined duties on 12/1/2018; he was granted extension for another year; the petitioner was being paid salary of Rs.22,048.00 per month as per D.C. Rates, which is lower than regularly selected Junior Engineer, who gets Rs.35,400.00 per month; although there is no difference in duties and responsibilities; on 28/8/2020, President of Municipal Committee, Kalayat - respondent No.5 wrote a letter to District Municipal Commissioner, Kaithal with a request to remove the petitioner from the post of Junior Engineer and start the process of appointing regular Junior Engineer at the earliest. According to the petitioner this was so done by respondent No.5 to adjust her own person. Respondent No.3 vide letter dtd. 29/8/2020 had issued showcause notice to the petitioner regarding not taking action against illegal construction/illegal occupation in connivance with the people living there. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice on 31/8/2020 denying the allegations. However, vide order dtd. 4/9/2020, the petitioner was removed from service without issuing any charge-sheet against him and without holding any regular enquiry. In the present case, the enquiry was conducted on the back of the petitioner and he was not allowed to participate in such proceedings. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the impugned order dispensing with his services is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. For redressal of his grievances, petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) This petition is being opposed by the respondents justifying the impugned order.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the record and I find that there is no merit in the writ petition and it is doomed for failure.