ZILA PARISHAD, HOSHIARPUR Vs. SURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This shall dispose of R.S.A. No. 2073 of 1995 filed by the defendants and also the cross-objections No. 7-C of 1996 filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that plaintiff, Surinder Singh was appointed as water carrier on 3.6.1976 in Zila Parishad, Hoshiarpur. Vide order dated 13.3.1995 his services were regularised w.e.f. 3.6.1978. The appointment of the plaintiff was on compassionate ground as his father had died during service while working as Water Carrier under Zila Parishad, Hoshiarpur. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 17.8.1978 when he had gone to join his duties at Veterinary Hospital, Rurki Khas Block, Garhshankar, he was told that his services had already been terminated. It is also his case that he made an application on 31.8.1997 in addition to earlier request, to the Secretary, Zila Parishad to grant leave of the kind due and permit him to join, but he was told by the Secretary that since his services had been terminated, leave cannot be sanctioned nor he can be allowed to join. Plaintiff has termed the order of termination as illegal, passed with prejudiced mind and thus, in the suit has prayed that the order of termination be quashed and suit in his favour for declaration that order dated 19.12.1986 terminating his services be declared inoperative against him. He has also prayed that the defendants be directed to allow him to join duty after sanctioning the leave of the kind due, and further pay the arrears of pay and other allowances admissible under the rules alongwith interest. On notice of the suit, defendants submitted that plaintiff absented himself from his place of posting on 9.12.1985 without having obtained any leave and remained absent continuously for months together. Defendants submitted that the plaintiff sent a fake medical certificate to the office where he was posted. He was asked vide various registered letters to join duties, but the registered letters were received back in original with the report that the plaintiff has gone abroad. Then publication was made in newspaper namely Daily Ajit, but despite that the plaintiff failed to join duties. Consequently an enquiry was ordered and on receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer, services of the plaintiff were terminated. Defendants thus prayed that the suit be dismissed. Plaintiff filed replication, reiterating the averments made in the plaint and denying the one made in the written statement. The trial Court framed the following issues :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the defendants, has urged that the findings of the first appellate Court are self-contradictory. He submitted that in para 13 of the judgment, first appellate Court has observed that when an employee abandons the job, then no further enquiry is necessary as the fact stands proved and termination of such an employee cannot be saved, but in para 14, the order of termination has been set aside by observing that the order being retrospective is bad in law and cannot be sustained. Counsel has submitted that the first appellate Court has wrongly interpreted and misapplied the facts of the present case. Against this, counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the order of dismissal cannot be passed with retrospective effect and so, no interference is called for as far as this part of the judgment of first appellate Court is concerned. In regard to the finding of the Courts below that proper enquiry was held against the plaintiff, counsel has contended that mere issuance of notice to the plaintiff indicating the nature of the allegations levelled against him, cannot be treated as sufficient compliance of the requirement of natural justice. In this regard, he has cited judgments in Vidya Rani v. The State of Haryana and others,1996 3 RSJ 336 and Narinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 1995 4 SCT 222(P&H).