BHANNA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case again raises the controversy as to whether an order of termination simplicitor be considered as stigmatic and violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution by lifting the veil to find out the real character of the order. One Bhanna Ram who was working on the post of Clerk in the office of District Education Officer, Jind has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of his termination dated 15.2.1984 passed by the Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Narwana. Another prayer has been made for quashing the subsequent order dated 26.10.1987 (Annexure P-11) passed by the D.P.I. (Schools), Haryana (respondent 2) rejecting his representation for his reinstatement in service and order dated 4.11.1988 (Annexure P-16) again rejecting his representation by the Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Education, Haryana.

(2.) On proceeding on leave by one Jang Bahadur Bhatnagar who was working on the post of Assistant, Bhanna Ram was appointed on the post of Clerk on temporary basis. He was sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, Jind. It was made clear in the appointment letter that the appointment was totally temporary and he could be relieved any time without notice. According to the averments made by the petitioner, he was considered on adhoc basis w.e.f. 17.10.1973 and his adhoc appointment was approved by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana vide Memo No. 2530-RI(III)-75/11403 dated 17.5.1975. He was allowed to cross the efficiency bar by the District Education Officer (respondent 3) vide its order dated 17.5.1979 (Annexure P-2).

(3.) On 1.1.1980, the respondent-State issued executive instructions by excluding from the purview of the Subordinate Services Selection Board those Class III posts which have been occupied for a minimum period of two years w.e.f. 31.12.1979 because such employees were to be regularised subject to the condition that they had completed two years on 31.12.1979 and any break in service upto a period of one month was to be condoned. The adhoc appointment was required to be sponsored through Employment Exchange and his work and conduct was required to be of an over-all good category. They were also required to fulfill the prescribed qualification for the post which was applicable at the time of his appointment on adhoc basis. The petitioner claims that his case for regularisation was sent on 3.7.1980 as he fulfilled all the necessary requirements as envisaged in the instructions dated 1.1.1980 (Annexure P-3). However, his case was sent back vide memo dated 3.7.1980 as it was not accompanied by a medical certificate. His case for regularisation was re-submitted to the Director, Public Instructions (Schools) (respondent 2) by the District Education Officer (respondent 3). However on 26.9.1980 the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect (Annexure P-4). The order further clarified that the petitioner was entitled to the subsistence allowance under Rule 7.2 of the Punjab Civil Services, Volume I, Part I. He was reinstated in service on 16.3.1981 (Annexure P-5) by respondent No. 2 with a stipulation that his reinstatement was without prejudice to the disciplinary action to be taken against him as a result of the case pending against him. It is pertinent to mention that till that time, there was no first information report registered against the petitioner. The reason for placing the petitioner under suspension as disclosed in paragraph 5 of the written statement was that he was found guilty of mis-appropriation of government funds. It has been pointed out that in 1979 he was entrusted with the duty of supplying cheap exercise books to the schools which were to be distributed amongst the students. He obtained commission from the supplier who sold the exercise books and kept the amount of commission with him. When he was suspended, the amount of commission was deposited by him in the Government Treasury on 29.11.1980. The total amount was Rs. 511/-. On account of his conduct, he was not found fit for regularisation of his services.