RAJ KUMAR GOEL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Raj Kumar Goel was appointed as Inspector of Shops on the 13th of February 1962. According to the letter of appointment (Annexure 'a') the petitioner was recruited on a temporary basis and amongst the terms of service only two need be noted here. According to condition 3 the petitioner was "to remain on probation for a period of two years. " In condition 6 it was stated that,

(2.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it is challenged on behalf of the petitioner that the order of termination of his services really amounted to dismissal, there being a stigma attached to the order that his work had been found to be unsatisfactory as mentioned in the 6th condition of the letter of appointment.

(3.) IT is argued by Mr. Kaushal, the learned counsel for the petitioner that annexure 'd' is not a discharge order simplicities but an order which carried with it the evil consequence of punishment inasmuch as an indelible stigma has been attached to the order of termination of his services. There is, of course, no mention that the petitioner's work was found unsatisfactory but reference is made to condition No. 6 which says that the services could be terminated without assignment of any reason if the work and conduct of the appointee was found to be unsatisfactory. It is conceded by Mr. Kaushal that the letter annexure 'd' would becomes innocuous if the reference to conditions Nos. 3 and 6 is deleted altogether.