JANG SINGH Vs. P.S.E.B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed a civil, suit for declaration that memo No. 53901 dated 23.5.1990 is illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional null and void, mala fide against the principles of natural justice and against service rules and regulations and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from acting upon the aforesaid order of termination.

(2.) He has averred in the plaint that he was working as a driver with the defendant-Board on 13.5.1969. He had met with an accident and FIR No. 71 dated 13.5.1969 was registered against him under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sangrur. After investigation, he was found innocent and discharged by the Judicial Magistrate vide judgment dated 28.2.1983. In the claim application filed by one Surjit Kaur for compensation before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, compensation was awarded against the Board in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- as the vehicle which belonged to the Board did not have the route permit and was not insured. On the basis of the aforesaid judgment, services of the plaintiff were terminated in September, 1973. Thereafter, he was reinstated on 17.11.1975. Since then, he had been discharging his duties to the best of his ability. He was given a notice on 22.6.1979 and thereafter dismissed by passing an order of termination dated 23.5.1980. The plaintiff claimed that order of termination is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India as well as the rules of natural justice. The plaintiff claimed that he had served more than 240 days and his services could not have been terminated without following the procedure of punishment or without paying him retrenchment compensation. The order had been passed by way of punishment on the basis of adverse report having been given by the Executive Engineer. Therefore, it was necessary to comply with the rules of natural justice.

(3.) The defendants controverted the claim put forward by the plaintiff and stated that the plaintiff was working only as a casual labourer. As a result of his careless driving the defendant-Board was burdened with a compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. He was discharged from service because of his negligent driving. He had filed a wrong affidavit on the basis of which he was appointed as a work-charge driver. He has been duly served with notice for one month as required under PSEB and Hydel Industrial Establishment (Other than Factory) Standing Orders, 1965. Reliance is placed on standing orders. Plaintiff filed the replication. The trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:-