ANIL MEHTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff Anil Mehta, whose suit for declaration had been originally decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Rohtak but on appeal filed by the State of Haryana (defendants), the said suit was dismissed after accepting the aforesaid appeal.

(2.) A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff stating that he was a member of the Civil Services of the State of Haryana serving in the Medical Hospital, Rohtak, employed as Senior Photographer since January, 1978, The plaintiff claimed himself to be a regular Government employee. Vide order dated April 10, 1980 passed by the Director Principal Medical College, Rohtak, he was ordered to be removed from service. The aforesaid order was challenged by the plaintiff on the ground that the same was punitive in nature and although framed innocuously, was in fact meant to inflict punishment on him for no fault of his what soever. It was further stated by the plaintiff in the plaint that earlier also on August 12, 1978, a termination order had been passed against the plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed a civil suit challenging the aforesaid earlier order dated August 12, 1978. The State Government had filed a written statement in the aforesaid case and the stand taken was that the matter against the plaintiff would be enquired into and necessary orders as per the Rules would be passed in case he was found responsible for any charge. The plaintiff maintained that on the aforesaid stand taken by the defendant in the written statement, he withdrew his suit. Thereafter the plaintiff was allowed to continue in service. According to the plaintiff the present order dated April 10,1980 is founded on charges of serious misconduct. which have never been enquired into nor any charge -sheet had ever been served upon him and therefore, although he was in fact sought to be removed on the charges of misconduct but the order of removal has been couched in a simplicitor language of termination. The validity of the aforesaid order has been challenged on various grounds.

(3.) THE learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The matter was taken up in appeal by the State of Haryana. The learned District Judge, vide his judgement and decree dated July 16, 1982 accepted the aforesaid appeal filed by the defendant and consequently dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has now filed the present regular second appeal challenging the aforesaid judgement and decree passed by the learned District Judge.