RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Raghbir Singh has filed the present writ petition invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hisar and also the order dismissing/terminating the services of the petitioner dated 11.12.1989.

(2.) Some of the relevant facts can well be delineated. The petitioner was appointed as a Field Inspector (Junior) in the service of the Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (for short respondent-Federation). He was selected by the Board of Directors of the respondent-Federation. The Board of Directors of respondent-Federation is only empowered to appoint the Field Inspectors under the Common Cadre Rules known as "The Haryana State Supply and Marketing Cooperation Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1969. While the petitioner was posted as Field Inspector at Fatehabad in the year 1974, his services were terminated on 22.1.1974 by the Managing Director of the respondent-Federation presumably on the basis of a confidential letter written by the District Manager, Hafed, Sirsa. It had been written that the staff of Cotton Corporation of India and Hafed staff were indulging in mal practice and committed a fraud at Fatehabad in connivance with the kacha Artias of the Mandi. As against the petitioner, it was further reported that he was quarreling at about 9.00 P.M. with Avinash Chander in the office of the society over the distribution of the money and Moman Singh, Peon of the society who was present there, was bribed with Rs. 100/- by Raghbir Singh for not disclosing as to what had transpired between him and the other persons. The peon, however, disclosed about the said fact. The petitioner had represented that he is being victimised. The Managing Director thereupon had issued fresh appointment letter to the petitioner from 15.5.1975 instead of cancelling the earlier order terminating his services dated 22.1.1974.

(3.) Subsequently, the Managing Director of the respondent-Federation issued a charge sheet to the petitioner. The subject matter of the same was identical. On basis of it the services of the petitioner were terminated. After a period of 4 years, the petitioner was issued another charge sheet on 8.11.1978 pointing various irregularities. The petitioner had submitted the reply. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 11.12.1980. A reference was made to the Labour Court. Respondent No. 2 after recording of some evidence concluded that services of the petitioner were terminated in a legal and valid manner.