SATBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was admitted to the police service in the State of Haryana as a Constable Messenger on 24.01.1991, was jettisoned in a hideous way, ill-becoming of a State establishment. I state this even at the beginning only because the facts revealed that the petitioner had joined at the recruitment training centre at Madhuban on 03.07.1991 and immediately after joining, he fell ill and admitted in the Nursing Home facility attached to the training institute on the following day, namely, on 04.07.1991. He was in the hospital till 15.07.1991 and rejoined his training course on 16.07.1991. He continued till 02.08.1991 when he again fell sick and referred to the Chief Medical Officer under Ex. Pl. He had been advised rest by the officer for 15 days and when he returned home for convalesces, he again fell ill and admitted in Primary Health Centre at Bhattu Kalan where he remained admitted from 19.08.1991 to 25.10.1991 and was advised rest upto 29.10.1991. He reported again on 30.10.1991 at the training institute when he was declined admittance on the ground that he had been discharged from the service. There was no order of discharge in writing but since the petitioner was not allowed to join, the writ petition was filed with the prayer that he shall be granted appropriate posting with continuity of service and consequential relief. The writ petition had been originally allowed directing reinstatement which was passed on 02.02.2001. The contention had been that there was no requirement for the State to issue any order of discharge and that he could not be allowed to continue. After the writ petition was allowed, the petitioner had been reinstated but the State has applied to the court for a review and the review application was allowed on 10.09.2009 even without the court being apprised of the fact that the petitioner had actually been reinstated and he was actually in service. The court had observed, in the absence of the petitioner, that he was no longer in service and hence, no relief, as sought for in the writ petition, could be granted. Pursuant to the review order, the writ petition was dismissed on 11.05.2010 and this was sought to be reviewed at the instance of the petitioner by bringing home the fact that he had actually been reinstated and the court was not duly apprised when it recorded a statement of the counsel for the State that he had already been discharged. The writ petition is back before this court to where it started.

(2.) The situation now is that the petitioner has regained his employment at the time when he was reinstated on 02.02.2001 and continued as such. It appears that he has also secured all the monetary benefits during the interregnum period. He has been sent to the basic recruitment course on 19.11.2003 and was also served with conversion order from Constable Messenger to Constable Wireless Operator. He was later promoted as Exemptee Head Constable and promoted ASI Exemptee on 12.09.2013. All these orders would show the legitimacy of his contentions and the untenability of the plea in the written statement of the State that he had been validly discharged. The counsel for the State argues that there is no prayer in the writ petition to quash the discharge order, to which the counsel for the petitioner would justifiably respond that there is no discharge order at any time nor placed in court that could be required to be challenged by an express prayer. Even while accepting the petitioner's case, for the sake of record, I would observe that if it were to be contended that there was oral discharge order, it is illegal, for, a government servant cannot be dispatched out of service by such a whimsical oral discharge.

(3.) I record the fact that he continued in service and as services shall be taken as continuation from the time when he was recruited and joined at the institute at Madhuban. The writ petition is ordered recording the above said facts with costs imposed at Rs. 25,000/- against the State for inexplicable and indefensible conduct exhibited by the State authorities.