HARI PAUL SEHGAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HARI Paul Sehgal-petitioner herein through present petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged order, Annexure P-4 passed by the Deputy Director on July 24, 1985 wherein it was mentioned that the services of the petitioner were no longer required and, therefore, he be served with a notice of 24 hours, after expiry of which his services shall stand terminated.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was appointed as Building Inspector on adhoc basis by the Director, Housing and Urban Development Department, Punjab, respondent No. 2 herein in the Punjab Housing and Urban Development Department vide orders dated September 7, 1983. He joined his duties on September 14, 1983. It is the case of the petitioner that ever since he joined service, he was continuously granted further extensions from time to time on three months basis. In this manner, he had served the department for a period of one year and ten months without any break. His work and conduct was adjudged satisfactory during his service in the department till his services were terminated on July 24, 1985. It is further the case of petitioner that the Government regularised the services of all temporary/adhoc employees to Class HI posts vide order dated August 8, 1985 and directed all the Heads of Departments and other Subordinate authorities to regularise the services of all temporary/adhoc Class IIi employees who had one year service to their credit as on April 1, 1985. However, services of the petitioner were terminated by respondent No. 2 vide orders dated July 24, 1985. No reasons whatsoever were assigned in the said order but the petitioner oraly learnt that his services were terminated on the basis of a corruption case registered against him vide F. I. R. No. 524 dated July 18, 1985, wherein he was acquitted on March 10, 1987 by the Special Judge, Amritsar. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a representation on September 26, 1985 to the department requesting that order, Annexure P-4, be withdrawn but his representation was dismissed on April 3, 1986 (Annexure P-4 ). He filed yet another representation on April 23, 1987 requesting therein that his termination order be withdrawn as he was acquitted in the corruption case registered against him by the Special Judge, Amritsar. When, however, his representations met with no success, he filed the present writ in this Court for the relief, as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.

(3.) THE cause of petitioner has been opposed and in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been specifically pleaded that the petitioner did not have satisfactory service record to qualify himself for regularisation under the Government instructions dated August 8, 1985 as also that the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary and adhoc basis and that his services were terminated before issuance of government instructions dated August 8, 1985 regarding regularisation of services of all temporary/adhoc employees. It is further the case of the respondents that services of the petitioner were liable to be terminated without assigning any reason as per terms and conditions mentioned in his appointment letter and even though a corruption case was registered against him, a yet his services were terminated on the basis of his appointment letter and not because of criminal case as was clear from the order of termination itself.