SIDAK BALA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed the termination order dated 26.10.1987 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No. 2, her appointing authority, being arbitrary, mala fide, discriminatory in nature. She was not afforded any opportunity of being heard and the order is also non-speaking. The petitioner's appointment was purely temporary and she claimed to have put in more than 2 1/2 years of service and thus stood regularized in view of the law laid down in Piara Singh's case. As per the letter dated 07.06.1985 (Annexure P-1) issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 2, her appointment was purely on temporary basis and liable to be terminated at any time without any notice or assigning any reason. The petitioner could also resign from service by giving one month's notice or deposit one months' pay in lieu of notice.

(2.) Though, the order (Annexure P-2) appeared to be innocuous and termination simplifier, stating that the services are no longer required, it ultimately turned out that the same was based on the misconduct and moral turpitude. Secretary to Government, Punjab Rural Development & Panchayats Deptt. disposed of the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the orders of the former Joint Development Commissioner in appeal vide order dated 08.11.1993 (Annexure P-8). This order suggests that the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Development)/District Rural Development Agency, Ferozepur held a proper enquiry and prima facie case of immoral turpitude and as such action of the appointing authority, terminating the services of the petitioner is legally in order and based on correct appraisal of the facts of this case. The revision petition was, thus, dismissed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon two judgments of this Court to support his contention that it is not the form of order of termination but the real import of the order to be determined on the basis of the attending circumstances in reaching the true conclusion. In Dr. Jai Singh Malik v. State of Haryana,1987 1 SLR 263, the petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer on ad hoc basis and working as such since 1977. In the written statement it was averred that there were serious complaints about the moral conduct of the petitioner and on many occasions he tried to outrage the modesty of female employees during his posting. Otherwise, it was stated that the services of the petitioner were not terminated by way of punishment but simply on the basis of letter of appointment. In the facts of the case, it was held by this Court that termination order was passed by way of punishment. It was found that immoral conduct attributed to the petitioner in the written statement is not just a motive but is the very basis and the foundation of the termination order. It was held as well settled that form of the order is not conclusive. The real import of the order is to be determined on the basis of the attending circumstances. In reaching the true conclusion, the Court can pierce the veil and look behind the innocuous language employed in an order of termination. It was also found that as a matter of fact no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and no enquiry was held against him. It was not spelled out from the written statement as to why the services of the petitioner were no longer required when his juniors were retained in service. The petition was allowed by quashing the impugned order.