NARENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Narendra Singh Surana was appointed as a temporary Excise Inspector under the State of Rajasthan (respondent no. 1) in pursuance of the order dated 24th October, 1973 (Ex. 5) issued by the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, Udaipur (respondent No. 2 ). THE said order of appointment was issued considering that the post available for appointment was a temporary one. He joined his duties on 31 st October, 1973, Lateron it was found that permanent posts were available and as such vide order dated 22nd November, 1974 (Ex 6), order dated 24th October, 1973 was amended and the petitioner was ordered to be deemed to have been appointed against a permanent vacancy on probation for a period of two years with effect from the date he assumed charge of his duty. ' It was made clear in the said order that he would be confirmed on the post of the Excise Inspector on satisfactory completion of the period of probation and including passing the departmental examination as per rules. THEreafter certain remarks entered in his Annual Confidential Reports for the year 1973-74, and 1974-75 were communicated to the petitioner, who was also awarded the punishments of stoppage of grade increments thrice during the period 1974 to 1976. THE petitioner appeared in the departmental examination held on 1. 12. 1975 but failed to pass the same. Vide order dated 6th December, 1975 (Ex. 9) the period of probation of the appellant was extended till 22nd August, 1976. Vide order Ex. 10, bearing the date of 30th September, 1976, and served on the petitioner on 2nd August, 1976, the petitioner was discharged from his service with immediate effect. THEreafter order dated 31st July, 1976 (Ex. 11) was issued by the District Excise Officer, Ajmer, who directed an another Excise Inspector to assume charge of the duties of the petitioner immediately as the petitioner had been discharged from his service vide Ex. 10.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), who vide order dated 31st March, 1978 (Ex. 12) dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the aforesaid orders passed by the Excise Commissioner as well as by the Tribunal.

(3.) THE case of the State is that the order Ex 10 was wrongly bearing the date as 30th September, 1976 due to typographical mistake and that a clarification dated 2nd August, 1976 Ex. R. 1) was issued stating that the correct date was 30th Sept. 1976. THE learned Govt. Advocate has contended that the petitioner was discharged from his service on 2nd August, 1976. According to the learned Govt, Advocate, therefore, the petitioner was discharged from his service between the extended period of his probation. THE petitioner has disputed this fact in the rejoinder and has stated that he has been paid salary upto 30th September, 1976 and he was discharged on that date. In the impugned order Ex. 12, the learned Tribunal has hold that order Ex. 10 was served on the petitioner on 2nd August, 1976. This finding has not been challenged either in the grounds taken in the writ petition or at the Bar. THE contention of the learned State counsel finds support from the fact that letter dated 31st July, 1976 (Ex. 11) issued by the District Excise Officer and filed by the petitioner himself along with the writ petition, makes mention of Ex. 10 and directs Excise Inspector to take charge of the duties of the petitioner immediately as the petitioner had been discharged from his service vide Ex. 10. Even if it be taken that the petitioner was not discharged from his service on 2nd August, 1976 but was infact discharged on 30th September, 1976, the case of the petitioner is not on better footing.