RAMESH LAL Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-appellant's suit for declaration that the order dated February 1, 1979 termination his services was wrong, illegal and not binding on him having been dismissed by the two Courts below, he has come up in this second appeal to this Court. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant was appointed as a Panchayat Secretary in the pay scale of Rs. 110-180 vide order dated May 4, 1977. He was required to produce a certificate of fitness from the Civil Surgeon. The appointment was also subject to his character etc. being verified by the police. The necessary medical certificate and the police verification having been received the Panchayat Samiti passed a resolution in its meeting held on June 27, 1977 ratifying the appellant's appointment. While he was working as such, he was not paid the salary for the period from March 1, 1978 to September 30, 1978. On December 27, 1978, he filed a suit for the recovery of the arrears of salary. While this suit was pending, the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats sent a letter to the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti in which it was inter alia observed that vide letters dated March 25,1977 and May 3,1978, it had been clarified that the vacant posts of Panchayat Secretaries created under the Half a Million Job Scheme, shall not be filled up till the finalisation of the suit. In spite of this, Ramesh Lal had been appointed as a Panchayat Secretary vide order dated May 4, 1977. The Executive Officer was called upon to explain as to why instructions were not carried out. A copy of this letter has been produced on record as Ex. D-3. On receipt of this letter, the Executive Officer addressed a communication dated January 22, 1979 informing the plaintiff-appellant of the observations of the Director and calling upon him to show cause as to why his services be not terminated. The appellant had to submit his reply by January 1, 1977. On this letter, Buta Ram, Peon made an endorsement that the appellant had refused to accept the letter. This endorsement does not bear any date. Copy of the order as also the endorsement thereon is on record as Ex. D-4. Thereafter, vide order dated February 1, 1979 (Ex. P4) the services of the plaintiff-appellant were terminated. This order was challenged by the appellant as being totally illegal, violative of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Rules govering his services. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondents. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(3.) LEARNED trial Court held that the suit was within limitation and that necessary parties had been impleaded. So far as Issue Nos. 2, 4 and 5 are concerned, these were decided together and it was held that the appointment had been "obtained against the rules and instructions of the Government. The plaintiff was not on the list of approved candidates. He had not submitted his application in time. As such, the plaintiff shall be barred by his own act and conduct from filing the suit and order relieving him cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction. " The appellate authority also held that "his recruitment on 4. 5. 77 was obviously made without there having been any basis or jurisdiction therefore, and thus in turn has to have the effect of its being said, that he could not, therefore, claim the protection of either the Punjab Civil Services Rules or of any other law or statute and consequently no fault whatsoever can be found with his having been relieved through the impugned order without giving him any chance to show cause or to explain his position, and it has rightly been so held by the Court below also. "