KULDIP SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed by the Director of Social and Womens Welfare, Himachal Pradesh, as driver on daily wages at the rates approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Simla, for a period of three months with effect from October 28, 1986, or till the post was filled in on regular basis and was given posting in the Directorate of Social and Womens Welfare, vide Annexure P-I dated December 27, 1986. He was thereafter re -appointed twice as driver, after giving fictional breaks, vide orders dated March 2, 1987 and May 18, 1987, for the periods from January 30, 1987 to April 29, 1987 and from May 1, 1987 to July 29, 1987, respectively. Although his last appointment in terms of the order dated May 18, 1987, came to and end on and from July 30, 1987, he was continued to be employed till July 31, 1987, when his services were "dispensed with immediate effect" as "no longer required" vide Annexure P -2. The petitioner challenges herein the said order dispensing with his employment.

(2.) In the affidavit -in -reply dated September 25, 1987, filed by the Director, Social and Womens Welfare, Himachal Pradesh, the ground which formed the real basis for the termination of the employment of the petitioner is disclosed in the following words in para 4 : "Para 4. -The services of the petitioner were not terminated to accommodate another person as alleged by him. A team of 1CDS Projects from Andhra Pradesh had come to this State in July, 1987 to visit various projects being run by this State Government. The Superintendent ICDS was deputed to accompany the team. The Vehicle No. HPS 5786 alongwith petitioner as Driver was placed at the disposal of the said Superintendent for undertaking the journey with the team. While going from Dharampur to Rampur with the study team on ICDS from Andhra Pradesh on 15 -7 -1987, the vehicle No. HPS 5786 went out of order at Theog. The members of the team had to be transported in another jeep and the luggage remained in jeep No. HPS 5786. When this vehicle reached Rampur on 16 -7 -1987 morning, one attache case of Smt. K. Sunanda, a member of the team was found missing. The driver of the vehicle Sh. Kuldeep Singh petitioner told that it was stolen at Theog. The case was registered with the Police Station Theog by the said Superintendent on 15 -7 -1987 with regard to the theft of the luggage. The Theog Police caught the culprit and the attache case was recovered from him and restored to the owner on 18 -7 -1987. This episode occurred because of the sheer negligence of the petitioner. It also brought bad name to this State as the members of the team were from Andhra Pradesh and we were expected to provide them the best services. The services of the petitioner were terminated because of this lapse/ negligence on his part." In paras 6 and 7 of the said affidavit also, there is a reference to the alleged "lapse -, "negligence - and "carelessness" of the petitioner as disclosed by the incident in question.

(3.) The petitioner thereafter moved an application for amendment of the petition which was granted and by way of the amended petition he has challenged the impugned order as illegal on the ground, inter alia, that the termination, although apparently simpliciter, is truly penal in nature and that it could not have been effected without compliance with the elementary rules of natural justice. In reply to the amended petition, an affidavit -in reply dated December 26, 1987, has been filed by the Director, Social and Womens Welfare, Himachal Pradesh, in which the same defence has been put forward but a little more vehemently. Paras 4 and 7 of the affidavit in -reply are reproduced hereinbelow verbatim: - "Para 4. -The petitioner was not a regular Government servant. He was offered the post of Driver on daily wages basis for specific period as a stop gap arrangement as is apparent from his appointment orders. The Respondent No. 2 was not required to offer him opportunity to defend himself as the theft of luggage from the Jeep which was under his charge was sufficient to prove his negligence and carelessness. The petitioner is solely responsible for the lapse as he should not have given lift to the unauthorised persons in the vehicle. Had he not given this lift, the ugly episode would not have occurred which brought bad name not only to the Department but also to the entire State. The members of the study team were our Honourable Guests and we were supposed to look -after their comforts properly. Instead, due to the negligence of the petitioner, the luggage of the members of the study team was stolen, which put them to a lot of inconvenience. It was beyond the knowledge of the Department that the glass of the back door of the vehicle was defective. The petitioner appraised the Department of this fact vide his application dated 25 -7 -1987 i.e, after a lapse of 10 days of the aforesaid episode. The reporting of defective glass of back door seems to be an after -thought, in order to absolve himself of the episode of theft. If such action is not taken against the defaulting employees, it gives encouragement to the negligent and inefficient member of the staff. His services had to be terminated to maintain proper discipline and efficiency in the Department. The appointment letter issued to the petitioner did not debar the Respondent No. 2 in terminating the services of the petitioner, at any time, without assigning any reason. * * * * para 7. -in view of the facts stated to above, it is abundantly clear that the action of Respondent No. 2 in terminating the services of the petitioner was fair, just and legal. If the defaulting officials are not punished, it breeds indiscipline in the Department. No order of the Honble High Court has been dis -obeyed by the respondents at any point of time. All the directions of the Honble High Court are obeyed scrupulously and, therefore, no contempt of Court is attracted in the instant case. The petitioner was appointed for specific periods and, therefore, the Respondent No. 2 was not required to offer any opportunity to the petitioner, when the Respondent No 2 was herself convinced about the grave lapse committed by the petitioner in the discharge of his duties. The services of the petitioner could not be continued till the appointment of the regular incumbent, even after noticing the Himalyan blunder perpetrated by him."