BHUPINDERJIT SONGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing order/Memo No. E/10/95 -6 Health 1/1680 dated 31 -5 -1994 (Annexure P -4) passed by Superintendent to Secretary to Government Punjab, Health and Family Welfare Department, terminating his services and further for issuance of writ, direction or order especially in the nature of mandamus directing respondent -State of Punjab to place on record the order on the basis of which his services have been terminated and to treat him in service and to regularise his services keeping in view his length of service and to grant him all consequential benefits along with interest.

(2.) FACTS : Petitioner applied for the post of Medical Officer in response to the advertisement that appeared in the press on 14 -10 -1988 for recruitment to certain posts of Medical Officers (short term basis) vide appointment letter dated 14 -8 -1989 (Annexure P -1). he was appointed as Doctor/Medical Officer on short term basis. As per letter of appointment Annexure P -1, offer of appointment was only for a short term basis for a period of six months or till the availability of the regular candidate from the Punjab Public Ser vice Commission, Patiala or whichever is earlier. He continued to serve the government continuously in pursuance of appointment up to 3 -7 -1995 i. e. when his services were terminated. He served the government when terrorism was at its peak. During that period, he received threatening letters. For security reason, he was given pistol by the police. His relations with his wife were not cordial. He filed application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 25 -1 -1995. Due to the filing of that application his wife Daljit Kaur became inimical towards him. His wife 's parents and other relatives are influential persons. They used their influence and manipulated false FIR on 14 -2 -1995 at Police Station, Kotwali, Hoshiarpur against him that he was in possession of unlicenced pistol. He was immediately arrested. He produced certificate from DSP (Intelligence) Hoshiarpur mentioning therein that he was in possession of a pistol issued to him for safety purpose by the police. In view of that certificate, he was granted bail on 9 -3 -1995. After his release on bail, he submitted joining report in office on 14 -3 -1995. He was, however, not allowed to join duty due to the registration of the case. Civil Surgeon, Jalandhar -respondent No. 3 wrote letter to respondent No. 2 Director Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh on 14 -3 -1995 inquiring him whether he should permit him to join duty still when case was lying registered against him. It was also mentioned that he was working as doctor (short term basis). Annexure P -2 is the copy of that communication. On 9 -5 -1995 respondent No. 2 recommended to the government after due enquiry that he had been got arrested by his in -laws due to the cases pending in the Court, therefore his services be extended up to 1 -4 -1995 to 30 -9 -1995. Annexure P -3 is the copy of that communication. Instead of giving extension, Superintendent to respondent No. 1 i. e. Secretary to Government Punjab, Health and Family Welfare Department informed respondent No. 2 that his services could not be extended beyond 31 -3 -1995 and further his request for joining duty had been rejected after due consideration. Annexure P -4 is the copy of that order. After the receipt of Annexure P -4 on 3 -7 -1995, petitioner on 7 -7 -1995 submitted application to respondent No. 2 with a copy to respondent No. 1 for giving him the detailed order of consideration and the reason for not extending his service. It is alleged that as per Rule 8 read with Rule 11 of the Punjab Civil Medical Services (Class -II) Rules, 1982 (herein after referred to as the Rules), the period of probation is two years. In the appointment letter Annexure P -1, it was mentioned that appointment was for six months. He, however, remained in continuance service after the expiry of six months. His services were discontinued in contravention of the terms and conditions of the appointment letter. It is alleged that one Dr. Manoj Kumar who was also appointed on short term basis like him was allowed to joint duty in spite of enquiry pending against him vide order dated 2 -3 -1995 passed by respondent No. 1. Order Annexure P -4 where through his services were terminated and not extended beyond 31 -3 -1995, is illegal, unjust and improper. It is arbitrary. As per appointment letter Annexure P -1, his services were liable to be terminated at the end of 6 months or on the appointment of a regular candidate, which - ever was earlier. In this case, he had already served more than 5 years and till date, no regular candidate had been sponsored by the Punjab Public Service Commission. There was thus no ground for the termination of his services. He had completed the period of probation, which was only two years to the entire satisfaction of the respondents. His services were got terminated by his in -laws, as is discernible from Annexure P -3 whereby Director Health and Family Welfare Department, Punjab asked for permission of the Secretary to Government, Punjab (Department of Health and Family Welfare) to permit him to join duty beyond 31 -3 -1995. In spite of the recommendation of respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P -3 to permit him to join duty, he was not permitted to join duty. One Dr. Manoj Kumar's services were extended by respondent No. 1 despite the pendency of enquiry against him. He ought to have been regularised. In view of the law laid down in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 Serv LR 770 : (1992 Lab IC 2168), State was required to frame policy for regularisation of the services of its employees. Had he been given proper opportunity before his services were terminated, he would have convinced the respondents as to the efficacy of his claim that he was entitled to be continued in service beyond 31 -3 -1995.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General (Punjab) and have gone through the record.