SUBHASH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO question springing up for considering in this writ petition is:- " (i) Whether an employee after attaining temporary status, is entitled to constitutional protection envisaged by Article 311 of the Constitution of India? (ii) Whether the services of a temporary employee can be terminated without holding a regular departmental enquiry, even if the order of termination is punitive in nature?

(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that the petitioner passed Secondary School Examination in the year 1995 and in the marks sheet the date of birth of petitioner was shown as November 27, 1979 in place of November 22, 1977. Accordingly corrected marks sheet dated November 5, 1996 was issued vide letter dated November 18. 1996. The petitioner underwent training on honorary basis in the department of Anesthesiology. The post of Anesthesia Technician was published vide advertisement dated January 23, 1997 for which the petitioner applied and he came to be appointed vide order dated February 25, 1997 and regularly performing his duties in Mobile Surgical Unit of Medical and Health Department as Anesthesia Technician. The name of the father of the petitioner is Ram Sahai Brahmbhatt and he is also called as Ram Sahai Sharma. Since the father of the petitioner being Nursing Superintendent lodged FIR about corruption against the respondent No. 4 Jal Singh, (now holding the post of Director Mobile Surgical Unit) with the Anti Corruption Bureau and contested the matter, the respondent No. 4 with a malafide intention terminated the services of the petitioner vide order dated July 6, 2001. The said order was challenged in writ petition No. 3355/2001. This Court vide order dated July 31, 2001 set aside the termination order and remanded the matter with a direction to pass a fresh order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondents after serving show cause notice to the petitioner again terminated his services vide order dated March 19, 2002 and relieved the petitioner vide order dated March 30, 2002. In the order dated March 19, 2002 it is stated that Anesthesia training certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of appointment was false. The petitioner has prayed to set aside the orders dated March 19, 2002 and March 30, 2002 on the ground that the said orders were punitive in nature and passed without initiating departmental enquiry.

(3.) NAR Singh Pal vs. U. O. I. , (2000)3 SCC 588, was the case where it was held that once an employee attains `temporary' status, he becomes entitled to certain benefits one of which is that he becomes entitled to the constitutional protection envisaged under Article 311 of the Constitution. If the order of dismissal of such temporary employee is passed on the basis of preliminary inquiry and without holding a regular departmental inquiry, it can not be sustained.