YOGESHWAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was interviewed for the post of Laboratory Attendant on 20.02.2000. He was offered appointment letter on 20.04.2000. He joined his duties in Government Senior Secondary School Barial on 27.04.2000. However, the services of the Petitioner were terminated on 7th January, 2002. Petitioner and similarly situate persons assailed their termination orders by filing Original Applications No. 85, 86, 87, 99, 128, 129, 130 and 141 of 2002 before the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal allowed these original applications and the termination orders of Petitioner and similarly situate persons were quashed and set aside vide judgment dated 1st March, 2002. However, the learned Tribunal had granted liberty to the Respondent -department to hold an enquiry in the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law. Respondent -State assailed the judgment dated 1st March, 2002, rendered in the above -cited Original Applications by way of C.W.Ps. No. 1035, 1036, 1037, 1066, 1076, 1077, 521 and 678 of 2002. The Division Bench of this Court up -held the judgment of the Tribunal dated 1st March, 2002, however, issued the following directions vide judgment dated 13th May, 2003: 1. The Petitioner -State shall issue show cause notices individually to all the Respondents, detailing therein the reasons, factors, grounds and circumstances etc. etc. which the Petitioner -State thinks are such which warrant the termination of the services of the individual Respondents. The Respondents individually through the medium of show cause notices would be called upon to submit their replies within a specified period, which shall not be less than two weeks.

(2.) IN the show cause notices, the Respondents should also be asked as to whether they would like to be heard in person.

(3.) THE termination orders if issued in accordance with the aforesaid procedure would be liable to be implemented in accordance with law. 2 In sequel to the judgment rendered by this Court, the Respondent -State issued show cause 16/5/2014 Page 118 Lt.Col.Sheilesh Jung (Retd.) Versus Rakesh Jung notices to the Petitioner and similarly situate persons on 25.08.2003. Petitioner filed reply to the same vide Annexure -PF. Respondent -State, after taking into consideration the reply filed by the Petitioner, terminated him on 29th September, 2003, by invoking Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. He was held entitled to claim pay and allowances at the same rates which was drawn by him immediately before the termination of his services. 3 Ms. Archana Dutt, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that a regular enquiry was required to be instituted by the Respondent -State before terminating the services of Petitioner. She further contended that there was no illegality in the selection process whereby her client has been selected and appointed to the post of Laboratory Attendant on 20.04.2000. 4 Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the appointment of the Petitioner was not in accordance with law. He then contended that the Petitioner has been heard as per the directions issued by this Court vide judgment dated 13th May, 2003, by issuing show cause notice on 25th August, 2003.