MATASHARAM BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 21.5.1999 as contained in Annexure -4 of the writ application whereby he has been dismissed from service in a summary enquiry and without holding any full fledged departmental inquiry.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as temporary Clerk in 1997 in the office of Notified Area Committee. He was subsequently made regular In service and was working as Tax Collector. He was made permanent employee in 1998. The petitioner was put under suspension on certain charges. The petitioner submitted his explanation. However, in a summary proceeding the petitioner was removed from service. A counler -affidavit has been filed on behalf of rhe respondents No. 2 and 3 wherein it is stated that, on the charges relating to accounting matter, a summary proceeding was conducted. The enquiry officer found him guilty for the laches in duty and for misappropriation of money collected by him. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was dismissed from service after holding a summary enquiry although the petitioner was appointed as a temporary clerk in 1970 and subsequently he was regularised arid (hereafter he was continuously working for about 27 vears. in such circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner could not have been removed from service on serious charges without holding any departmental proceeding. It is now well -settled that even daily wages employees, who were working for a considerable time and also such employees. who were appointed on probation for a certain period are entitled to get opportunity of hearing in a departmental proceeding. Recently in the case of B.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 79? the Supreme Court observed that even a person appointed on probation for two years with a special condition that he shall be removed from service without any notice is also entitled to get opportunity of hearing in a departmental proceeding before he is removed from service.