BAL RAJ Vs. SENIOR SUB JUDGE, HISSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was appointed as Process Service in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Hissar, vide order dated June 9, 1977, is aggrieved by the order of termination of his service passed on Jan. 7, 1987. It is averred that the order has been passed without granting any opportunity of hearing whatsoever and is, therefore, violative of the principle of natural justice. It has also been averred that a number of persons junior to the petitioner have been allowed to continue while the petitioner has been singled out for this discriminatory treatment. The petitioner has also averred that the appeal against the impugned order lies before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Hissar, but since the learned District & Sessions Judge had himself forwarded the complaint against the petitioner as referred to in the preceding paragraph of this writ petition to the learned Senior Sub Judge, Hissar, for appropriate action, no useful purpose can possibly be served by filing of the said appeal. On these premises, the order of termination of service has been challenged.

(2.) A written statement has been filed by the Senior Sub Judge, Hissar. It has been averred that the work and conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory and he was warned verbally a number of times to improve his working. He was disobedient and a written complaint was received from Shri R.L. Sankhla, Sub Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hansi, about his behaviour. It is further averred that in the year 1977 a fine of Rs. 20.00 was imposed upon the petitioner. Thereafter vide memo dated June 27, 1979 the petitioner was 'warned'. A fine of Rs. 30.00 was also imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated Jan. 4, 1985. A complaint dated Jan. 3, 1987 was made by Mr. Sankhla alleging that the petitioner had refused to carry out his direction to hand over some files to the Ahlamad and stated that he is not a peon and he will not hand over the files to the Ahlmad. Details regarding petitioner's behaviour and conduct have been given in this complaint. Along with it, affidavits of the Reader as also the Stenographer were sent to the District & Sessions Judge, Hissar. As the petitioner's work was not satisfactory, his service were terminated.

(3.) It has been admitted that the persons junior to the petitioner are continuing. However, since the work and conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory his services were terminated in terms of his appointment letter. It has also been averred that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy of appeal before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Hissar. He having not availed of that remedy, is not entitled to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.