DHARAMPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had initially joined service as a Driver with the Project Director under the Drought Prone Area Programme at Rohtak. This appointment was made vide order dated March 20, 1978. While the petitioner was working as such, the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, issued an order dated January 17, 1990 by which the petitioner was transferred "and posted as driver. . . . . . . . on purely temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 + 200/special pay". It was specifically provided that "he will be on probation for a period of one year. In case, his work and conduct during the period is not found satisfactory, he would be sent back to his parent office or the probation period would be extended by the competent authority".

(2.) On April 12, 1996 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet. It was alleged that he had parked the car at an unsafe place and the keys of the car had not been given to any of the officials. It was further alleged that he had gone to his home and remained absent from September 4, 1995 to September 10, 1995 without any leave application. It was also alleged that a loss of about Rs. 6,000/- was caused. The petitioner had been given 15 days time to file the reply. However, before the day could even end, an order of his reversion was passed by which he was directed to be reverted to the parent office with immediate effect. A copy of the order passed by the Commissioner on April 12, 1996 has been produced as Annexure P-5. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed an appeal. This appeal was not decided. The petitioner then approached this Court through a writ petition. Directions for expeditious disposal of the appeal were given. In pursuance to these directions the Financial Commissioner vide his order dated November 6,1997 rejected the petitioner's appeal. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P-8. The petitioner challenges the orders dated April 12, 1996 and November 6, 1997, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P-5 and P-8 respectively. He alleges that the order of reversion had been passed by way of penalty without affording any opportunity to him to even submit a reply to the charge-sheet. He further alleges that even the appellate order is based on the alleged misconduct which had not been established during any proceedings. Consequently, it is maintained that the petitioner has been punished unheard.

(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3. It has been inter alia averred that the post of Driver "was to be filled up by direct recruitment by sending the demand of the post to the Sub-ordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana. . . . . . . . . . . ". As the post had to be filled up urgently "the petitioner was appointed as Driver on transfer basis. . . . . . . . . . However, "subsequently, the Government and the said Board refused to grant approval. " Thus, "this office was left with no option, but to repatriate him to his parent department i. e. District Rural Development Agency, Rohtak".