RAM NIWAS Vs. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Watchman on temporary basis on Sept. 24, 1977 by the District and Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. On Oct. 15, 1985, he was posted as additional Peon in the court of Shri Surender Kumar, Sub Judge, Rewari. Vide order dated Aug. 28, 1986, the District and Sessions Judge, Narnaul under whose jurisdiction, the petitioner was serving as an additional Peon terminated his services. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner submitted an appeal. It was heard and decided by D.S. Tewatia, J. It was found that the petitioner had acquired no right on any substantive post. The appellate authority further found that the petitioner had absented himself from duty from Feb. 4, 1986 to Feb. 10, 1986. As a result, vide order dated May 27, 1986, his increment was withheld. The learned Judge thus found no merit in the appeal and consequently dismissed it. Aggrieved by the order of termination and the dismissal of his appeal, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition. The order has been challenged on the ground that having served for more than 8 years, the petitioner had acquired the status of regular employee and that his services could not have been terminated without assigning any reason. It has been further stated that the action is violative of the provisions of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of India. It has also been alleged that the order has been passed mala fide by Shri N.K. Jain the then District and Sessions Judge, Narnaul who was prejudiced against the petitioner. It has also been averred that certain persons junior to the petitioner were retained in service and as such the action is violative of Art. 16 of the Constitution.

(2.) A written statement has been filed by Mr. S.B. Ahuja, District and Sessions Judge, Narnaul. It has been inter alia averred that in the confidential report for the year 1977, it has been mentioned that "in spite of the fact that this employee is a fresh appointee, he lacks dedication to work and needs strict vigilance." In the report for the year 1984 the petitioner's honesty and integrity were described as "below average - untruthfull" It was further mentioned that he was a shirker. Even in the report for the year 1985, the petitioner was found to be below average. It was observed that "he does not perform his duties conscientiously. He is most disobedient. He is hinderance in the smooth functioning of the court work because sometime he does not attend the bell to call on a case for hearing. As such the court has to wait for his arrival. He does not deserve to remain in service." Further, reference has been made to certain complaints which have been sent by different officers at different times pointing out that the petitioner was not attending to his duties efficiently. A copy of the order dated Aug. 28, 1986 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Narnaul has also been produced by which the complete sequence of events was noticed and it was found that the petitioner had been absent from duty and was not a fit person to be retained in service.

(3.) I have heard Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jaswant Singh for the respondents.