HAKIMUDDIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed temporarily as Patwari for a period of six months in the first instance vide order dated 24th March, 1964 (Annexure -1). In the appointment order it is also mentioned that the petitioner having passed the Patwar examination from Punjab was being appointed as Patwari and the appointment was subject to the production of a certificate of Medical fitness by a competent Medical Officer. The petitioner continued in service till the order dated 15 -12 -1987 (Annexure -2) was passed whereby, he was removed from the service. Against this order the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) NOTICES were issued. The State Government has also filed reply. The arguments have been heard and we have perused the record also.

(3.) WE have carefully considered these authorities. In the case of Sang Singh (supra) petitioner had joined his duties on August 3, 1979 and his services were extended for one year and thereafter his services were term inated because he was not qualified. The writ petition itself has been decided on 22nd August, 19K). In the present case the petitioner has been in service continuously right from 1964 till 1987 for neaily 21 years. Similarly, in the case of Rita Mishra (supra) the point involved was 'whether the petitioner was entitled for his pay etc. even though the appointment letter was either forged, fraudulent or illegal. The Full Bench of Patna High Court held that 'The State Government is not bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel for the acts of its subordinates done in violation of its directions or administrative instructions'. We are not in quarrel with this proposition. In the present case the appointment order of the petitioner itself shows that he had passed the Patwar examination from Punjab and the Government on the basis ofethis of this fact had appointed him as a Patwari and he continued to work as such on the said post for 3 years. Similarly, in the case of Fateh Chand (supra) the facts were quite distinguishable. In the present case the impugned order dated 15 -12 -1987 cannot be said to be a valid order as is amounts to removal without holding an enquiry. If the petitioner is a dishonest person his services can be terminated after holding a regular enquiry. But his services cannot be terminated by passing an order like (Annexure -2) simply saying that because he was not qualified. This order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.