SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shamsher Singh, petitioner, has challenged order Annexure F/6 dated December 23, 1991, whereby his services were terminated. The petitioner was appointed as Driver on May 1,1991 vide order Annexure P/1. An accident took place with the vehicle which the petitioner was driving on November 25, 1991. A scooterist was involved in the accident whose leg was fractured. The petitioner was placed under suspension on December 4, 1991. Explanation of the petitioner with respect to the accident aforesaid was called to which he submitted the reply. On December 23,1991, suspension of the petitioner was revoked and he was reinstated. It was on that very day that services of the petitioner was terminated vide passing the impugned order Annexure P/6. Order of reinstatement is Annexure P/5.

(2.) The stand of the respondents in the written statement is that order of termination was passed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the appointment letter and was stated to be valid.

(3.) We have heard counsel for the parties and we are of the opinion, after taking into consideration the circumstances as referred to above, that infact order of removal of petitioner from service Annexure P/6 has passed by way of punishment in order to get rid of the petitioner who had involved the State vehicle on an accident causing injuries. The order of termination is apparently silent about the cause, the Court can always go behind the same to find out the real cause which resulted in passing the order. The sequence of facts as stated above show that it was on the day the petitioner was reinstated after suspension was revoked that simultaneously the order of termination was passed'. The stand of the respondents that order Annexure P/6 vide which the petitioner was removed from service was in accordance with terms and conditions of order Annexure P/l cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that it was not specifically stated in the impugned order that the same was passed on account of unsatisfactory work and conduct of the petitioner during the period of probation. A perusal of order Annexure P/l shows that the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis and his services could be terminated if there was no vacancy. In that case even prior notice was not necessary to be given to the petitioner. Second ground on which services could be terminated without any reason was to give one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof, for the reasons other than that covered by the first condition. The present case is not covered by the (sic) conditions. It was third contingency that the services of the petitioner were terminated during the period of probation which was stated to be two years extendable any another year. It is on this cause that the stand of the respondent-State is based. If the work was not found satisfactory, the services could be terminated without any notice or assigning any reason whatsoever as mentioned therein.