CHAMPALAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality of the order termination the petitioner's services.

(2.) IT is common ground between the parties that the petitioner on being selected by the Selection Commission constituted under Section 86(6) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1939 was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on probation for two years in the Panchayat Samiti Baitu vide order dated 3 -7 -67. The petitioner jointed the post in the same day. By resolution dated 5.8.69 the Finance, Taxation and Administration Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samitis, Baitu extended the period of probation of the petitioner upto 5.8.69 and by the same order terminated his services. The relevant portion of the resolution dated 5.8.69 is in these terms: .........[vernacular ommited text]........... Pursuant to the above resolution, the Vikas Adhikari communicated the resolution passed by the said Standing Committee to the petitioner vide order dated 6.8.69. The order of the Vikas Adhikari runs as under: .........[vernacular ommited text]........... Aggrieved the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition to the Government but without any success. The revision petition was dismissed by the Government vide order dated 25/26.10.71 which runs as under: .........[vernacular ommited text]........... Ultimately, the petitioner presented this writ petition challenging the order terminating his services on the ground that the order is penal in character and tantamount!; to dismissal or removal of the petitioner from service The petitioner also complained against the order on the ground that he could be dismissed or removed only in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 7 of the Rajashan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1961. Since no enquiry as contemplated under Rule 7 was conducted before terminating his services, the order was liable to be quashed.

(3.) THE leraned Counsel for the petitioner has raised three grounds before me Firstly, that the petitioner completed probation period of two years on 3 7 69 and on its completion he automatically stood confirmed on the post and acquired an status of a confirmed or a permanent employee. Secondly, since the impugned orders dated 5 8 -69 and 6 -8 -69 visit the petitioner with evil consequences and cast an aspersion against his character and integrity, they must be considered to have passed by way of punishment, no matter whether the petitioner was a mere probationers Thirdly, that the services of the petitioner could not be terminated without following the procedure laid down under Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1961. Ground No. 1: