Harish Singh Negi, S/O Late S.S. ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 2096 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Rule.

2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of termination. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as messenger on 31.10.86 in the office of respondent No. 2 on compassionate grounds. The petitioner was put in the scale of pay of Rs. 196-3-220-EB-3-232.

3. Ms. Palli counsel for the petitioner has contended that initially the appointment of the petitioner was for one year on probation. It is contended that the petitioner had been working for over 12 years and was getting the regular pay scale of a messenger Gr.II and was also getting H.R.A. and bonus. In February 1999, the petitioner went on 18 days medical leave. However, when he came to join the duty he received an order No. 201/99, dated 25.2.99, which is to the following terms:

"The services of Sh. Harish Singh Negi, Messenger Gr.II, are, hereby, terminated with immediate effect in terms of para 3 of the terms of appointment contained in the offer of appointment letter No. 5/8 dated 31.10.1986."

4. Ms. Palli has contended that before terminating the services of the petitioner, the petitioner was neither given any show cause notice nor any departmental enquiry was held. The petitioner was relieved from service on 25.2.99 itself.

5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has contended that petitioner was on probation initially for a period of one year and the same was extended at the discretion of the respondent. He has also relied upon a letter dated 31 October, 1986 in support of his argument that the appointment was only temporary and did not confer any right to the petitioner to become permanent. Another contention of counsel for the respondent is that this Court would not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as respondent No. 2 is not a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Lastly, it was contended by the counsel for the respondent that large number of memos were issued to the petitioner as the petitioner was in the habit of absenting himself from duties.

6. I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties. From the bare perusal of the termination order it is manifestly clear that respondent No. 2 has not even taken care of the letter dated 31.10.1986, on which reliance has been placed by counsel for respondent No. 2. From the reading of appointment letter itself it is clear that probation period could be extended at the discretion of respondent No. 2 without assigning any reason and service could also be terminated with one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof. Even if I assume that the petitioner could fall in that category even then neither one month's notice nor salary in lieu thereof has been given to the petitioner. To my mind to treat the petitioner in such a cavalier fashion after the petitioner has undergone 12 years of service was highly improper on the part of respondent No. 2 apart from being illegal. There is no force in the argument of counsel for respondent No. 2 that the petitioner was habitual in absenting himself from the duties if that was so or there was any other misconduct on the part of the petitioner, show cause notice ought to have been issued to the petitioner and thereafter appropriate action in accordance with law ought to have been taken by respondent. There is also no force in the argument of counsel for respondent No. 2 that respondent No. 2 is not a state as for the purpose of issuing appropriate directions under Article 226 of the Constitution respondent No. 2 need not to be a state.

7. For the reasons stated above, I quash the termination order dated 25.2.99. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits as of reinstatement and arrears of salary. However, it will be open for the respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with law for any misconduct committed by the petitioner.

8. The petition is allowed.

9. Rule is made absolute.