SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of termination passed on December 7,1981. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Plate Grainer in the Printing and Stationery Department of State of Haryana. Vide letter dated August 8, 1978, the petitioner was informed by the Secretary of the Subordinate Services Selection Board that his name had been recommended to the Controller Printing and Stationery, Haryana for appointment as a Plate Grainer. He was placed at No. 1 in order of merit. In pursuance to the recommendation of the Board, the petitioner was given a letter of appointment on September 13, 1978. In this letter, it was inter alia mentioned that the petitioner shall be on probation for a period of 2 years. It was also provided that in case he wanted to resign, he will have to give one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof. It was further pointed out that the Govt, will also give him a similar notice or pay in lieu of the notice. While the petitioner was working as such, a charge-sheet was issued to him vide letter dated September 29, 1980. It was alleged that he had cheated the Govt, "by producing bogus/false experience certificate in order to get employment." On the basis of the allegation, action was proposed to be taken against the petitioner under Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. However, before the proceedings could culminate, the petitioner's services were terminated vide order dated December 7,1981, A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition. It was observed that "his services are no longer required to (sic) this department. Hence his services are terminated with immediate effect." Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The order has been challenged on a two-fold basis. Frstly, it has been urged that the order of termination is vitiated as one month's notice was not served on him before taking die impugned action. Secondly, it is alleged that the impugned order has been passed without giving any show-cause notice or concluding the enquiry proceedings. On these grounds, it is urged that the impugned order be quashed and the petitioner be ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits.

(3.) The respondents contest the petitioner's claim. It has been stated that the conditions of service governing the petitioner are laid down in the rules called the Punjab Printing and Stationery Department Service Rules, 1964. Under Rule 9, a person appointed by direct appointment is initially placed on probation for a period of 2 years. This period can, however, be extended. The total period of probation including the extension, if any, cannot exceed 3 years. It has been further pointed out that vide letter dated December 15,1991 instructions had been issued by the Chief Secretary providing that the decision regarding the continuance of an employee in service can be taken within three months from the date of expiry of the period of probation. On this basis, it has been stated that the petitioner's services have been terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. The allegation regarding the issue of charge-sheet has been admitted, it has been stated that the enquiry proceedings were dropped by the appointing authority. It has also been categorically averred that "the services of the petitioner have not been terminated in lieu or in consequence of the findings of the enquiry proceedings." The allegation that one month's notice was not given to the petitioner has been controverted and it has been stated that no notice was required to be served. On this basis, it is claimed that the writ petition has no merit and should be dismissed.