RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have approached this Court impugning the order dated 05.08.2011 (Annexure P -5) vide which their services have been terminated. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been terminated merely because they were contractual employees in the institute whereas there is no involvement of the petitioners either in the purchase or on the receipt of the items which were purchased by the Purchase Committee. The payment was also not made through the petitioners and the bills were in the name of the Principal who had made payment. Referring to the impugned order of termination dated 05.08.2011 (Annexure P -5), counsel for the petitioners contends that their names do not figure in the list of employees against whom departmental proceedings have been initiated or action have been taken for misconduct or causing loss to the department. She contends that in para 10 of the impugned order, names of the petitioners figured without finding anything against them and merely because they are contractual employees working in the same institute, their services have been terminated. She contends that as a consequence of order dated 05.08.2011 (Annexure P -5), orders dated 13.09.2011 (Annexures P -6 and P -7) have been passed vide which the contract of their appointment stands terminated. This, the counsel for the petitioner contends, is not sustainable as there is no base or ground for terminating the appointment/contract of the petitioners.

(2.) COUNSEL for the respondents, on the other hand, states that the petitioners are contractual employees and, therefore, have no right to approach this Court. He contends that steel almirahs were purchased which were used by the petitioners and, therefore, they should have reported the matter to the competent authority about quality of the alimirahs which were supplied to them. Therefore, they were held responsible by the department and action was taken against them. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. The order which had led to the termination of the services of the petitioners is dated 05.08.2011 (Annexure P -5) passed by the Director Industrial Training, Haryana -respondent No.2. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the names of the petitioners do not figure in the list of employees who have been found to be misconducting or against whom departmental action has been initiated. The report of the Lok Ayukta which is the basis for proceeding against the other employees also does not indicate that the petitioners were in any manner involved in the said process. Neither were they called by the Lok Ayukta, nor were there any allegations against them. The findings also did not indicate that the petitioners, in any manner, were involved in purchase or receipt of the material. The findings of the Lok Ayukta which have been reproduced in the order dated 05.08.2011 as also the recommendations which have been as mentioned in para 4 and 5 of the impugned order read as follows: -

(3.) THE writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 05.08.2011 (Annexure P -5) alongwith consequential orders dated 13.09.2011 (Annexures P -6 and P -7) stand quashed. Petitioners are ordered to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits provided they submit an affidavit to the effect that during this period, they were not gainfully employed elsewhere.