S P DAHIYA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S . P. Dahiya -petitioner passed B. Text. with speciality in spinning in 1979 from Bhiwani. After passing B. Text. he joined as Spinning Assistant in Jiyaji Rao Cotton Mill Gwalior, M.P. in April, 1979. He has more than 16 years experience to his credit in the field of spinning and has worked in different spinning mills at different places in different capacities up to January, 1996. He was appointed as Spinning Manager in Shri Vijay Cotton Mills Bijay Nagar, Rajasthan in November. 1988. In May, 1992, he was promoted as Joint Manager and subsequently Factory Manager and worked there up to February, 1996. Shri Bijay Cotton Mills, Bijay Nagar, Rajasthan is a Govt. of India undertaking. In Annexure P -1 he has given the details of his experience with places where he worked and also the capacities. The Punjab Cooperative Cotton Marketing and Spinning Mills Federation Ltd. invited applications for the post of Chief Executive in the Federation, where he was selected, by a duly constituted selection committee. He was offered appointment of Chief Executive vide order dated 27 -12 -1995 of the Managing Director, Spinfed, Chandigarh in the pay scale of Rs. 4500 -6700, plus DA/ADA as per Federation Rules. In the appointment letter, it was stipulated that he will remain on probation for two years which could be extended at the discretion of the Mills Management for another year. During the probation, the Management had the right to terminate his services without notice. It was mentioned in the appointment letter Annexure P -2 that the conditions of his service in the Mills will be as per rules, regulations and administrative instructions applicable to the organisation. In view of his selection and appointment by respondent No. 3, he was posted with Kot -Kapura Spinning Mills, Sandhwan. He gave up his job of Joint Manager with Shri Bijay Cotton Mills, Bijay Nagar. He was performing his duties in accordance with law and according to the guide -lines of his superiors with Kot Kapura Spinning Mills, Sandhwan. In December, 1996. there was a turn of events and his misfortune started. He was called by respondent No. 4 at the headquarters at Chandigarh and was asked on 13 -12 -1996 to resign. He refused to oblige him because he had accepted this job after resigning his previous job, which was permanent and there was no complaint from any quarter against him. Respondent No. 4 took his refusal to resign as an affront to his authority and transferred him vide order dated 18 -12 -1996 from Kot -Kapura to Cooperative Spinning Mills, Malout which was not a running spinning mill and was lying closed. It was done with the intention to harass and humiliate him. Respondent No. 4 again called him in the office at Chandigarh and directed him to resign. On him refusal to resign. he threatened him to terminate his services. He submitted representation to the Hon'ble Cooperative Minister, Punjab on 23 -12 -1996 mentioning therein the hardships being faced by him viz. that he was transferred from Kot -Kapura to Cooperative Spinning Mills, Malout which was a punitive measure. He joined at Kot Kapura in February, 1996 and was transferred to Malout where Spinning Mill was not in working condition. There was no employee in the Malout Spinning Mills except security guards and no salary was being paid there. The Hon'ble Cooperative Minister. Punjab directed the Registrar, Cooperative Societies to look into the matter. Mrs. Suman Bansal, Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Annexure P -3 is representation made by him to the Hon'ble Cooperative Minister, Punjab. Representation (Annexure P -3) added to the annoyance of respondent No. 4 against him. He fabricated a false and baseless charge sheet on four counts against him on the basis of manipulated statements of different officials. Annexure P -4 is charge sheet (copy) issued to him. After receipt of the charge sheet, he submitted detailed reply refuting each head of charge. Annexure P -5 is reply to the charge sheet submitted by him. No enquiry was, however, conducted by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies in accordance with service rules. He was removed from service vide order dated 8 -4 -1997 by respondent No. 4 by resorting to condition No. 1 of the appointment letter dated 27 -12 -1995. Order dated 8 -4 -1997 (Annexure P -6) removing him from service was received by him on 10 -4 -1997. The immediate cause for passing the order terminating his services was the reply submitted by him to the charge sheet and his letter dated 1 -4 -1997 requesting respondent No. 4 to releast his salary from 29 -1 -1997 to 31 -3 -1997. Respondent No. 4 instead of paying him salary for the aforesaid period, became vengeful and terminated his services. Action of respondent No. 4 is thus mala fide and punitive. He challenged the order of his termination through a revision which was declined by the Financial Commissioner (Cooperation) Punjab, Chandigarh vide order Annexure P -9. Through this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for the issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order Annexure P -6 dated 8 -4 -1997 passed by respondent No. 4 terminating his services and order Annexure P -9 dated 3 -2 -1998 dismissing his revision. It is stated that all these orders are mala fide and against the settled principles of law. He has prayed for direction to the respondents to pay him salary for the period from 18 -12 -1996 till date and reinstate him in service with continuity of service and all consequential benefits.

(2.) RESPONDENTS No. 3 and 4 contested the writ petition, urging that this writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of laches, having been filed after more than 2 -1/2 years of the accrual of cause of action. Action was taken against the petitioner according to the rules. It was denied that he was ever asked to resign. It was denied that there was any mala fide involved so far as termination of his services is concerned. His services were terminated during the period of probation because they were found unsatisfactory.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4, learned State Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and have gone through the record.