SANTOKH SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR STATE TRANSPORT, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman. He worked as a driver in the Indian Army from 3.1.1965 to 1.9.1980 when he was discharged from service on completion of his tenure. He participated in 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pak wars. On release from the Army he got himself registered as an unemployed driver with the Employment Exchange. He was later appointed as an ad hoc driver by the General Manager, Punjab, Roadways, Batala with effect from 14.3.1981. However, vide order dated 17.11.1981, Annexure P-2, his services were dispensed with as being no longer required. He challenged the order, Annexure P-2, in this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 5521 of 1981. It came up before a Division Bench on 2.2.1982 when the following order was passed :-

(2.) The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. Written statement has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and a separate written statement has been filed by respondent No. 3. The defence taken, however, is identical. It is maintained that the petitioner had been employed as a driver on ad hoc basis. He did not complete the period of 240 days. He cannot claim regularisation of his services and the impugned order Annexure P-2 is his discharge simpliciter. It is not stigmatic in nature. His services were discontinued as per terms and conditions of his service. He has, therefore, no cause of action.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the various documents placed on the record. No doubt, the order Annexure P-2 is innocuous one and simply dispenses with the services of the petitioner. This order by itself does not show that there was any allegation of misconduct which actuated the respondents to terminate the services of the petitioner. However, when the order Annexure P-9 passed in appeal is perused the cat is out of the bag. It is mentioned therein that the bus being driven by the petitioner on 14.6.1981 was damaged because he tried to overtake a Tonga and a Rehari. Similarly, on an earlier occasion also he caused damage to a bus being driven by him on 13th May, 1981. The damage to the bus was assessed at Rs. 1,982/- and orders were passed by the General Manager to recover the amount from him. Because of these two accidents caused by him, which according to the authorities, were the result of rash and negligent driving of the bus by him he was considered to be inefficient and an incapable driver, therefore, he was removed from service. Besides it was observed that the appeal had been filed by the petitioner long after expiry of the period of limitation and was liable to be dismissed on this score also.