DEVINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari on 8th December, 1999 in respondent-department. He joined his duties at Charda in district Chamba on 27th December, 1999. He applied for casual leave on 6th March, 2000, which was further extended by applying for medical leave till 21st March, 2000. Petitioner joined his duties on 22nd March, 2000. Thereafter he proceeded on casual leave on 29th March, 2000. Petitioner applied for extension of leave. Same was rejected on 28th April, 2000. He was directed to join his duties, failing which disciplinary proceedings were to be taken against him (as per Annexure A-5) vide telegram dated 28th April, 2000. He requested for extension of leave on 8th May, 2000. Petitioner was again directed to join his duties vide communication dated 30th May, 2000. He was informed by the District Ayurvedic Officer that he should join his duties, failing which the matter shall be taken up with the State Government for terminating his services. He replied to the communication dated 30th May, 2000 on 26.6.2000. He was informed on 17th August 2000 that the absent period has been treated as leave without pay with the further direction to him to join his duties immediately. Petitioner made a request on 17th August, 2000 to extend the leave. According to him, he was under treatment. Petitioner was directed to explain his position vide memorandum dated 22nd August, 2001 (Annexure A-13). He submitted the reply on 29th August, 2001. He joined his duties in Ayurvedic Health Centre at Charda on 6.9.2001. Thereafter petitioner requested the competent authority to sanction leave with effect from 5th November 2001 to 27th January, 2002. He was informed on 20th December, 2001 that the application was not supported by medical certificate. He was directed to appear before the medical board. The fact of the matter is that the services of the petitioner were terminated under the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 on 19th March, 2002.

(2.) Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that a regular inquiry was required to be instituted against the petitioner before terminating his services. According to her, the services of the petitioner have been terminated for unauthorized absence, which amounts to mis-conduct.

(3.) Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has Vehemently argued that the work and conduct of the petitioner was not found satisfactory during the period of probation and he has remained absent within a period of two years for 593 days. According to him, the petitioner was served with memorandum on 22nd August, 2001 and the reply was received on 29th August, 2001. He further contended that the petitioner was not confirmed and since he was a temporary employee, his services have rightly been terminated by resorting to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. He lastly contended that no regular inquiry was required to be conducted against the petitioner.