BHARAT BHUSHAN SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Sectional Officer under the first proviso to Rule 5(2) of the Punjab Municipal Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') vide orders dated December 2, 1988. Vide letter dated June 22, 1990, the petitioner was served with a notice to show cause as to why the order dated December 2, 1988 be not rescinded. Finally, vide order dated February 8, 1991, the Government has rescinded the order of December 2, 1988. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has approached this court through the present petition. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Draftsman in the Improvement Trust, Ropar on April 27, 1976. On January 31, 1983, he was given the additional charge of the post of Sectional Officer in the Trust. On July 15, 1983, he was given the additional charge of the post of Sectional Officer in the Municipal Committee, Ropar. Vide orders dated June 27, 1986, the petitioner was transferred from the post of Sectional Officer in the Improvement Trust, Ropar to that of Sectional Officer in the Notified Area Committee, Nangal. These orders were passed by the then Secretary to Government Punjab in the Local Government department. It is averred that while working as Sectional Officer in the Notified Area Committee, Nangal, the petitioner represented for his permanent absorption in the Punjab Municipal Service of Sectional Officers. According to the petitioner, the representation was accepted and vide orders dated December 2, 1988 (Annexure P.5) the petitioner was absorbed in accordance with the provisions of the rules. As a consequence in the seniority list of Draftsmen issued by the State of Punjab the name of the petitioner was deleted. This, the petitioner submits, was on account of his permanent absorption in the Municipal Service of Sectional Officers. Vide letter dated June 22, 1990, the petitioner was served with a notice to show cause as to why the order dated December 2, 1988 be not, rescinded. He submitted his reply vide letter dated June 27, 1990. He sought personal interview. It appears that at the time of personal hearing, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated July 24, 1990, copies of which are at Annexures P.7 and P.8 with the writ petition. Vide orders dated February 8, 1991, the order of the petitioner's absorption in the Municipal Service of Sectional Officers (Annexure P.5) was rescinded. Consequently this petition.

(3.) The Motion Bench while admitting the petition stayed the operation of this order on March 14, 1991. As a result, the petitioner has continued to hold the post of Section Officer. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the written statement certain preliminary objections regarding the failure of the petitioner to exhaust the alternative remedies of appeal to the Governor and the competence of the petition especially in the absence of having not impleaded Mr. J.S., Kesar, IAS, the former Director Local Government as the necessary party, have been raised. It has also been averred that the writ petition had been drawn up on January 31, 1991, while the impugned order had been issued on February 8, 1991. It is claimed that the tendency to rush to the Court deserves to be curbed by dismissing the writ petition at the very threshold. On merits it has been stated that the petitioner never "requested to be sent back to his original cadre and relieved of the additional charge but with ulterior motive continued to cling to the post of Sectional Officer which was only an interim arrangement and wilfully dodged time with a view to establish his right to the post of Sectional Officer in the cadre of provincialised municipal service." It has been further averred that "the petitioner hobnobbed with the then Director, Local Government, Punjab, Mr. J.S. Kesar, IAS. The said Director in order to cause wrongful gain to the petitioner had not played the role of guardian of rules and regulations but in utter disregard, sheer negligence and wilful distorted misconstruction of the 1975 Rules, erroneous interpretation of law and rules, passed an order of appointment of the petitioner on the promotional post of provincialised Municipal Sectional Officer, a copy whereof is Annexure P.5 with this petition." Various infirmities in the matter have been mentioned in paragraph 5 of the written statement. It has been further averred that "both Sectional Officer and draftsman are in the same scale of pay which is all the more good reason that there will be no injustice consequent upon his reversion from Municipal Sectional Officer to Trust Draftsman." In reply to paragraph 7(i) it has been inter alia stated that "the former Director Local Government who passed order, Annexure P.5, never arrived honestly at a certain decision but gravely erred in facts and law. The role played in this case by the petitioner himself is dubious and the then Director who passed order, Annexure P.5. failed to correctly interpret the statutory provisions and has not played the role of guardian of rules and regulations." It has been further stated that the petitioner "should thank his stars that the Government has taken his illegal appointment as an error and shown a gesture of goodwill and humane attitude by reverting him rather than dispensing with his services."