Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sohan Pal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117222
CWP-24243-2023 -1-
249
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-24243-2023
Date of Decision: 09.09.2024
SOHAN PAL
..... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present: Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Parveen Mehta, DAG, Haryana.
******
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)
The petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari
quashing the orders dated 23.08.2022 and 24.08.2022, Annexures P-8 and
P-9 respectively, whereby the petitioner's service agreement was cancelled
and was relieved from duty on account of an FIR relating to sexual
harassment having been lodged against him. Further, a writ of mandamus
has been sought directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to join duty
and grant consequential benefits.
2. Briefly, as per facts available on record, the respondent-
Department issued an advertisement dated 23.04.2016, Annexure P-2,
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117222
inviting applications for the posts of Instructors on contractual basis. The
petitioner applied for the same and pursuant to due selection, he was offered
the contractual appointment as Fitter Instructor, vide letter dated 10.01.2017,
Annexure P-4, and joined as such at Government Industrial Training
Institute (GITI), Ballah, District Karnal. Although the initial appointment
was for six months, he continued working without any break in service as
the Department entered into fresh service agreement(s) with him after expiry
of every tenure. The latest service agreement dated 04.07.2022, has been
appended as Annexure P-11 with the petition.
2.1. While in service, FIR No. 0148, dated 21.07.2022, under
Sections 376, 506 and 328 IPC was lodged at Police Station Women, Karnal.
On that account, he was arrested by the police on 27.07.2022, was bailed out
later vide order dated 21.04.2023, Annexure P-6.
2.2. Due to registration of the aforesaid FIR, the second respondent-
Director Industrial Training Department, vide impugned letter dated
23.08.2022, directed the Principal of ITI to cancel the petitioner's service
agreement. In compliance, vide impugned memo dated 24.08.2022, his
service agreement was cancelled, with a direction to hand over charge to the
Institute. With these facts, the petitioner approached this Court.
2.3. During pendency of the petition, the criminal trial against the
petitioner concluded, resulting in his acquittal of all the charges vide
judgment dated 07.05.2024, Annexure P-13, rendered by the Additional
Sessions Judge-cum-Exclusive Court for Fast Tracking of Heinous Crimes
Against Women, Karnal. He brought this fact to the respondents' notice by
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117222
submitting a representation dated 13.05.2024, Annexure P-14, requesting to
reinstate him in the service and to treat the termination period as service
period. However, no action was taken.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned
order is illegal as it has been passed without affording any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner. In terms of service agreement, dated 04.07.2022,
the Department has been vested with a right to take a disciplinary action
against him only after following due procedure and holding an enquiry.
Even this process was not followed and the terms of agreement were
violated. He has further placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court
in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others v. Brijesh Kumar and
Another, arising out of SLP (C) No. 10546-2019, holding that even in case of
contractual appointment if the employee has been terminated by passing a
stigmatic order, the Principles of Natural Justice have to be complied with.
4. Learned State Counsel, on the contrary, contends as that the
petitioner's contract of engagement was only for six months, he could not
have been reinstated in service even after acquittal of the criminal charges.
5. Heard.
6. As per the undisputed facts on record, the only ground on which
the petitioner's services were terminated was lodging of the aforementioned
FIR No. 0148, dated 21.07.2022, alleging sexual assault against him. The
impugned order, dated 24.08.2022, itself records that his contract of service
has been cancelled on account of lodging of FIR with the allegation of
sexual harassment. Accordingly, the order is stigmatic and could not have
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117222
been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing and complying with
the Principles of Natural Justice. A reference in that regard can be made to
the law laid down in Brijesh Kumar case (supra) holding as under:
19. The services of the respondent have been
determined solely on the ground of misconduct as alleged but
without holding any regular inquiry or affording any
opportunity of hearing to him. The termination order has been
passed on the basis of some report which probably was not even
supplied to the respondent. No show cause notice appears to
have been issued to the respondent. Therefore, the order of
termination of his services, even if on contractual basis, has
been passed on account of alleged misconduct without
following the Principles of Natural Justice. The termination
order is apparently stigmatic in nature which could not have
been passed without following the Principles of Natural Justice.
20. In the light of the above facts and discussion, we
are of the opinion that the order dated 30.01.2016 terminating
the services of the respondent is bad in law and cannot be
sustained. It has rightly been set aside though on a different
ground that the respondent is a permanent employee having
been appointed on compassionate basis. The appointment of the
respondent, in fact, is a contractual appointment entitling him to
continue as such in service and to claim regularization if so
advised in accordance with law.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117222
7. The contention of Learned State Counsel that the petitioner, in
fact, was employed for six months and cannot be reinstated, is also not
sustainable in view of the undisputed facts on record that he joined the
Institute in 2017 and worked continuously till termination of service vide the
impugned orders with effect from 23.08.2022. Accordingly, despite the
contract of service being for six months, the petitioner continuously worked
for about five years with periodical renewal(s) of contract on the same terms.
And it cannot be accepted that only on account of the initial term of service
contract being for six months, re-instatement cannot be ordered.
8. In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents
are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service, provided the post against
which he was engaged is vacant. The reinstatement shall be on the terms he
was working before termination of services vide the impugned orders dated
23.08.2022 and 24.08.2022, and shall be entitled to all consequential service
benefits except salary for the period he has not worked. The directions are to
be carried out within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)
09.09.2024 JUDGE
Seema
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
