SUKHDEV SINGH SANDHU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a teacher vide order dated May 17, 1971, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.11 with the writ petition, his services were ordered to be terminated. He filed an appeal. On June 3, 1971, the Secretary to the Government, Department of Education, ordered "the termination of services of the appellant be stayed till the decision of the appeal." Vide communication dated Feb. 12, 1982, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.13 with the writ petition, the Block Primary Education Officer informed the School that the Government had dismissed the petitioner's appeal vide order dated Jan. 28/29, 1982 and that the petitioner had been ordered to be removed from service. A copy of this communication is on record as Annexure P.13. Thus, the petitioner learnt that his appeal had been dismissed. The petitioner impugns the order dated May 17, 1971 and the communication dated Feb. 12, 1982 (copies at Annexures P.11 and P.13 with the writ petition) through the present writ petition. He prays that these orders be quashed and that he be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner had been appointed as a JBT teacher on July 16, 1959. In the year 1963, he was given a questionnaire. The effort was to find out if he had married more than once. He submitted his reply on Nov. 11, 1963. The replies given by the petitioner to the questionnaire indicate that he was married to Rajwinder on April 17, 1953. He married second time in May 1955 to Ajit Kaur. On Oct. 9, 1964, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet. The precise allegation levelled against the petitioner was:-

(3.) The petitioner filed an appeal. The operation of this order was stayed. However, the petitioner complains that without informing him and giving him any opportunity of hearing, the appellate authority dismissed that appeal. However, no order has been conveyed to him. Only the School authorities were informed that the Government had rejected the petitioner's appeal. As a result, it was directed that the petitioner be relieved of his duties. In pursuance of this communication, the petitioner was actually relived of his duties in Feb. 1982.