HARDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 4.7.1984 whereby services of the petitioner were dispensed with.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as JBT Teacher on 8.10.1970. During the period from 1976 to 1979, the petitioner had been working as JBT teacher in Govt. Primary School, Kandhar Garh in Block-Malerkotla-2, where Madhuri Devi (respondent No. 5 herein) was also employed as JBT Teacher. Bal Krishan, husband of respondent No. 5 filed a divorce petition before the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, making allegation that respondent No. 5 was having illicit relations with the petitioner. Vide judgment and decree dated 6.8.1981, learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, found that Madhuri Devi (respondent No. 5) was living in adultery with the petitioner. In view of this finding, divorce petition filed by Bal Krishan was allowed and a decree of divorce was passed. Petitioner too was a party to the divorce petition, but he had been proceeded ex parte. Against judgment and decree dated 6.8.1981, respondent No. 5 filed F.A.O. No. 606 of 1982, which was dismissed by this Court on 3.1.1983. Since the petitioner had been proceeded ex parte, he filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree, but that application was dismissed on 25.5.1984 having been filed after the period of limitation. As a result of finding given in the ex parte order of divorce, departmental proceedings were started against the petitioner and vide show-cause notice he was called upon to explain as to why his services be not terminated as provided under Rules 13 and 5(1) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (in short, 1970 Rules). Petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice dated 26.5.1984, in which he stated that the matter is pre-mature because the finding was given in an ex parte judgment in which he was not served. The District Education Officer, Sangrur, having considered his reply to the show-cause notice, vide his order dated 4.7.1984 (Annexure P-3) dispensed with the services of the petitioner with immediate effect. Petitioner impugned this order in Civil Writ Petition No. 2981 of 1984, which later on was withdrawn on 20.9.1985 when counsel for the petitioner submitted that he be permitted to withdraw the petition with a liberty to file fresh one as and when a decision is taken by the appellate Authority regarding the setting aside of ex parte decree. It may also be noticed at this stage that in the meantime, petitioner had also filed an appeal against his termination order (Annexure P-3) before the D.P.I. (Primary Schools) under Rule 15 read with Rules 16 and 18 of the 1970 Rules. Against the order dismissing his application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree, petitioner preferred F.A.O. No. 1143 of 1986. The same was decided on 16.10.1986. The relevant paragraph of order dated 16.10.1986 may be noticed :

(3.) Respondents in their written statement is stated that ''the appeal filed by the petitioner as stated in para No. 11 of the writ petition was pre- matured, so no action was required. He should file an appeal within 45 days from receiving the orders of termination under Pb. C.S.R. Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1970. Moreover, as per decision of Hon'ble High Court (Annexure 5) the petitioner should file an appeal but no appeal was filed by the petitioner.