STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Vs. NAVNEET VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Haryana Bureau of Public Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as 'HBPE'), arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the original lis, has filed this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against judgment of learned Single Judge, dated 29.1.1999, recorded in Civil Writ Petition No. 442 of 1995, whereby the petition filed on behalf of petitioner Navneet Verma, Accounts Executive, Haryana Bureau of Public Administration, was allowed, setting aside order, Annexure P12, dated 30.12.1994, abolishing the posts of Accounts Executives, consequently terminating services of the petitioner. It was further ordered that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential benefits, even though it was open to the authorities, if so advised, to take any such disciplinary action against the petitioner for any misconduct and proceed against him, in accordance with law and the rules.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, constraining the petitioner to challenge the impugned order, Annexure P12, would reveal that Smt. Kiran Lekha Walia, the 3rd respondent arrayed in the original lis, applied for the post of Financial Adviser. It has been the case of the petitioner that she did not fulfil the prescribed requirement of 3 years experience after doing Chartered Accountancy. However, she had been appointed as Financial Adviser, whereas the petitioner, who was already working on the post of Accounts Executive, was required to report to the 3rd respondent but he was disillusioned to find that her only interest was in regard to her personal errands much more than official work. In fact, she wanted the petitioner to take him as her personal staff. The petitioner, after carrying out a few petty errands, made no secret of his resentment about the treatment meted out to him. When he brought the facts to the notice of respondent No. 2 - the Members Secretary, HBPE, he rather wanted to petitioner to resign from his job. On account of the complaint made by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent, it was the case of the petitioner, hardened her attitude, which was of insult and humiliation even in the presence of his subordinates. The petitioner received a communication, Annexure P5, casting serious aspersion even on his professional competence. The same also contained a veiled threat of disciplinary action against him. It was the case of the petitioner that on account of his complaint against respondent No. 3, respondents 2 and 3 got annoyed with him and planned to eliminate and relieve him from the service. The petitioner, having no option, made a representation to the Chief Minister, Haryana, vide Annexure P6. The 3rd respondent, thereafter lodged a totally false and baseless complaint against the petitioner to the Member Secretary, upon which one Shri S.S. Malhotra, Personal Secretary to the Chairman, was appointed to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the allegations made by the 3rd respondent in her complaint. By an office order dated 3.8.1994, petitioner was made to report to the Management Consultant instead of respondent No. 3. In the note aforesaid, it was stated that in discharge of her function, the 3rd respondent was to be assisted by another Accounts Executive, to be posted. The petitioner made a request to the Investigating Officer, who was asked to make a preliminary inquiry, to furnish a copy of the complaint said to have been made by the 3rd respondent, but he was advised to approach the 2nd respondent in this regard. The 2nd respondent, however, declined to supply the material required by the petitioner, vide Annexure P10. It was the case of the petitioner that thereafter no action was taken against the petitioner on the basis of the report of the Inquiry Officer. But instead of taking any action, the services of the petitioner had been dispensed with, consequent upon the abolition of the post of the Accounts Executive vide Annexure P12, which, as mentioned above, was challenged, with the result already indicated above.

(3.) Primarily, it has been the case of the petitioner that the entire exercise, leading to abolishing his post, was a colourable exercise, simply with a view to ease him out on account of animosity with respondent No. 3, on account of a complaint, having been made by him against misbehavious of respondent No. 3 from the Job which came to be occupied by him on 16.7.1993.