LAKHBIR RAI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court impugning order dated 19.1.2012 (Annexure-P-14), vide which services of the petitioner have been terminated.

(2.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Secretary in the pay scale of Rs. 3120-5160, vide order dated 12.10.2001 (Annexure-P-1). Order dated 10.1.2002 (Annexure-P-2) was issued by respondents to the effect that the petitioner was under age as per advertisement and his age should have been between 18-35 years, whereas his age was 17 years 8 months. On this ground, he was relieved from service, vide order dated 10.1.2002. Petitioner filed CWP No. 4999 of 2002 in this Court and vide order dated 22.3.2002 (Annexure-P-3), operation of the order was stayed. Petitioner, in pursuance to the order passed by this Court, was taken back in service, vide order dated 10.4.2002 (Annexure-P-4). Petitioner, in the meanwhile, got incorporated his correct date of birth in his matriculation certificate from the Punjab School Education Board, vide which his date of birth was incorporated as 31.12.1978 instead of 31.12.1979. This aspect was clarified by the respondents from the Punjab School Education Board and after satisfaction, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service. Vide order dated 21.6.2004 (Annexure-P-7), petitioner was appointed on contractual basis at a fixed salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Appointment order of petitioner alongwith others was challenged in CWP No. 6660 of 2009, which was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 19.2.2010 (Annexure-P-8). Petitioner thereafter continued in service.

(3.) All of a sudden, vide order dated 19.1.2012 (Annexure-P-14), services of the petitioner have been dispensed with stating therein that his name has come out in taking bribe in the fake transfers of Panchayat Secretaries on the statements of Tarsem Singh, Punit Jindal and Hardip Singh.