DEEPAK JOSHI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed as Junior Basic Trained Teacher on contract basis on 10.12.1996 at Government Primary School, Heonad in Block Bakras, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmour. He worked there up to 28.2.1997. Thereafter on the basis of fresh contract, he was posted at Government Primary School, Bounal on 10.3.1997 and remained there up to 12.12.1999. Thereafter on the basis of another agreement, he was appointed in Government Primary School, Allian on 13.12.1999. A show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 19.8.2002. He was given an opportunity to make representation for dereliction of duties and on the basis of his conviction under Sections 341, 332, 353, 504 and 508 of the Indian Penal Code. He had remained unauthorized absent on 21.3.2002 and 22.3.2002. Petitioner filed reply to the same on 3.9.2002. Thereafter another show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner by the Deputy Director, Primary Education on 18.10.2003. He was given time up to 17.11.2003 to file the reply. He filed the reply to the same on 18.11.2003. He was administered warning on 19.3.2004 by the Deputy Director, Primary Education. The contract was extended on 18.3.2004 with effect from 2.4.2004 to 31.3.2005, vide Annexure A-8. Petitioner was served with a memorandum dated 15.3.2005 by the Deputy Director of Primary Education, to which he filed reply on 18.3.2005. Services of the Petitioner were terminated on 23.3.2005.

(2.) Mr. V.D. Khidtta has strenuously argued that the services of the Petitioner could not be terminated without holding regular inquiry. He then contended that his client has not worked as CorRespondent of Dainik Bhaskar while working as Junior Basic Trained Teacher.

(3.) Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the termination order dated 23.3.2005. According to him, since the Petitioner was appointed on contract basis, no inquiry was required to be held.