TARSEM LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition seeking the following relief:-

(2.) As per the averments made in this writ petition, the petitioner was serving in the Food Corporation of India (FCI) since 1995. A complaint dated 14.6.2011 was made by one Gurdial Singh to the respondents, alleging that the petitioner had cheated the FCI by not supplying his actual date of birth at the time of his appointment in 1995. According to the complainant, his actual date of birth, as per the certificate issued by Senior Secondary School, Jandiala, is 5.3.1949, whereas he has supplied his date of birth in the record of the respondents as 14.5.1955. According to the petitioner, on the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the respondents made a secret investigation and on the basis of said investigation report dated 29.10.2011, which was in contravention of the rules, the petitioner was found guilty of concealment of his actual date of birth and furnishing the false date of birth. Thereafter, notice was issued to the petitioner under clause 13 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946 (for short, "the 1946 Rules") with opportunity to make such representation to the respondents, but the said notice was also illegal, as proper opportunity was not given to the petitioner and thereafter, respondent No.5 passed order dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure P-5), terminating the services of the petitioner under Section 14(3)(b) and 14(4)(c) of the 1946 Rules. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order dated 13.12.2011, petitioner filed an appeal before the General Manager, FCI, Punjab Region, Chandigarh with a prayer to set aside the aforesaid termination order and also to allow him to join his duties. The appeal of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 7.2.2013 (Annexure P-7).

(3.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the aforesaid order of termination (Annexure P-5) and order dated 7.2.2013 (Annexure P-7), whereby his appeal against the aforesaid order was dismissed, alleging that action of the respondents is not justifiable, as the petitioner has not been given a proper opportunity of hearing to defend his case.