V P REHBAR Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner V. P. Rehabr has challenged the order passed by the respondent state of Punjab through its Financial Commissioner on 1st of July 1963, terminating his services as a Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Bhunga,on the ground that these were " no longer required". In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has made a mention his sacrifices as political sufferer in the cause of struggle for independence of the country and to the improvement which he made in his cause of struggle for independence of the country and to the improvement which he made in this qualification after the partition. The petitioner was appointed a Black Development and panchayat Officer in the scale of Rs 250-25-350/25-500 by the order of the punjab Government of 21st of September 1961. The post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer thought temporary was " likely to continue in terms of the appointment order and the period of probation was to be two years provide the post continued to exist. It was also the term in this appointment prodder which in annexure. A that the services "could be terminated without notice if administrative exigencies so dictate". In other respects the Punjab Civil Services Rules were made applicable to the post to which the petitioner was appointed.

(2.) ON the 17th of February 1962 , the petitioner when he was posted as Block development and Panchayat Officer , Lehar Gagga addressed letter directly to the director-General National Employment Exchanges New Delhi in which he made certain complaints about the departmental matters and also suggested improvements to ameliorate the lot of those who were unemployed. This is annexure, 'b'. On 17th of May 1962 the Director National employment Exchanges punjab at Ambala wrote the Secretary , Punjab Government in the Labour and employment Exchanges. The petitioner was further stated to have addressed a public meeting of Paches and Sarpanches at described as "institution of unemployment" created with the object of showing "work-load". The petitioner is said to have criticised not only the Department of Employment Exchanges but his own. In this letter it was suggested to the Punjab Government that the "officer concerned should be asked to explain his action in criticising his own department which he asserted was doing bogus work and also another department of the government" and also another department of the Government" and also another department of the Government " and also to explain why he had addressed directly to the Government of India. A letter (Annexure 'd') was sent on 30th of June 1962 from the Secretary to the punjab Government to the Deputy Secretary and the action of the petitioner as block Development and Panchayat Officer in addressing directly to the government of India ignoring the prescribed channel of correspondence was stated to be "objectionable". The Deputy Secretary was asked to administer a warning to this officer and to ensure that such a thing did not happen in further. A copy of this letter was sent by the Deputy Secretary to the petitioner for an explanation and to show cause why as provided under the rules. Reference may also be made to a letter of 17-4-9163 addressed by the Financial Commissioner development tot he petitioner when he was Executive Officer panchayat Samiti hoshiarpur (Annexure 'i') in which the language used by the petitioner in his letter to the Assistant Accounts Officer Simla was described to be "offensive" and he was required to submit an explanation for the use of such language within 15 days. The petitioner has complained about the behaviour meted out towards him by the financial Commissioner Shri Fletcher and Minister Shri Darbara Singh in a meeting held in the zilla parishad Hall at Hoshiarpur , on 23rd of May according to the return was that in reply to certain questions put by the Minister the petitioner gave answers which were described to be 'foolish' revealing that he did not have "the requisites knowledge of his work and responsibilities. "

(3.) WITHOUT assigning any cause the order of termination of services was passed under the signature of Shri Fletcher on 1st of July 1963 (Annexure 'j') and the ground stated was that the services of the petitioner were "no longer required"