MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, AMBALA CITY Vs. VIKRAMJIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal against whom suit for declaration was dismissed by the trial Court but was decreed in appeal.

(2.) In the letter of appointment (Exhibit D-1) was made clear that he was being appointed temporarily and his services could be terminated without any notice and in case he wanted to leave the job, he would give one month's notice to the Municipal Committee. However, later on he applied for a certificate from the Municipal Committee, which was issued to him on 12th December, 1977 (Exhibit P-4). In that certificate in the column of General Remarks of Controlling Officer it was stated he was terminated on account of misbehaving towards his superiors performing duties lazily and carelessly. "On the basis of that certificate the plaintiff filed present suit on 12th May, 1978 for declaration to the effect that the order dated 9th May, 1975 (Exhibit P-1) passed by the Administrator Municipal Committee, terminating his services was illegal, void, arbitrary, ineffective and contrary to the mandatory provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The suit was contested on behalf of the defendendant Municipal Committee, inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff was recruited on purely temporary basis, and therefore, in view of the terms and conditions in the letter of appointment (Exhibit D-1) his services could be terminated without any notice. Since the plaintiff had made allegation in the plaint that his work was satisfactory, it was disputed in the written statement and was pleaded that as matter of fact the plaintiff was not dismissed from service but he was relieved of his duties as his services were no longer required by the Municipal Committee, as his work was not to be the satisfaction of his superiors and his appointment was purely of temporary nature. It was also stated that he was lazy in the discharge of his duties and his behaviour towards his superiors was also not good. The trial Court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the order under attack dated 9th May, 1975 (Exhibit P-1), terminating his services was illegal, void, arbitrary and contrary to Article 311 of the Constitution of India, because the plaintiff accepted the appointment under Exhibit D-1 and thereunder his services could be terminated without any notice as he was appointed temporarily. In view of these findings, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge reversed the said findings of the trial Court and it was found that the termination order was passed without affording an opportunity of showing cause to the plaintiff and was bad in law and liable to be struck down. Reliance was placed on The State of Punjab v. P.S. Cheema, 1975 AIR(SC) 1096. Consequently, the plaintiff suit was decreed. Dissatisfied with the same, defendant Municipal Committee has come up in Second Appeal to this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that admittedly the plaintiff was appointed temporarily and his services could be terminated without any notice as was clear in the appointment letter (Exhibit D-1). The termination order dated 9th May, 1975 (Exhibit P-1) was passed without any stigma and, therefore, it could not be said that the said order was passed by way of the punishment. In support of his contention he referred to Binoy Kumar Mukherjee v. State of Bihar and others, 1971 2 SLR 314; State of U.P. v. Bhoop Singh Verma, 1979 2 SLR 28 and Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Dr. Md. S. Iskander Ali, 1980 AIR(SC) 1242.