Ram Mehar v. The District and Sessions Judge, Hisar & Anr.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Devender Punia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was appointed as a Peon on temporary basis in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Hisar on

18.3.2008. He joined his duties on 24.3.2008 and thereafter was assigned work in the office of District & Sessions Judge, Hisar. With effect from 14.3.2009, the petitioner was assigned duties to the Court of Ms.Sonika Goel, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar. As per the petitioner, he had performed his duties satisfactorily and even used to work at the residence of the officer. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10460 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: On the occasion of Holi, the petitioner sought permission to go to his village, which was denied. As per the petitioner, the permission was denied as some guests were to come to the residence of the Officer and, thus, the petitioner could not be spared. The petitioner repeated his request, which, as per the petitioner, annoyed the officer. As per the petitioner, the officer then complained to District & Sessions Judge, Hisar that the work and conduct of the petitioner was not upto the mark and he often left the station without prior intimation and permission. Pursuant to this complaint, report was sought and it was accordingly reported that work and conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory and that his services be terminated. The District & Sessions Judge accordingly terminated the services of the petitioner on 16.3.2009 on the ground that his work and conduct was not satisfactory. The petitioner was on probation. The petitioner accordingly has filed this writ petition to say that his services have been terminated by way of punishment and as such, the impugned order would be stigmatic and hence, can not be sustained and could have only been passed after holding enquiry. Notice of motion was issued. Separate replies have been filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2. It is pointed out that the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis and his services could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. During the period of probation, his work and conduct was not found satisfactory and so he was terminated on 14.3.2009. In his reply, respondent No.1 has also mentioned that the petitioner was refused station leave on the eve of Holi but still he left without any CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10460 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: permission and this fact revealed when the officer wanted to send certain files to the camp office. Respondent No.2 in his reply, has stated that the petitioner belongs to a nearby village and occasionally he used to leave station without any information or permission. The petitioner was stated to be in the habit of reaching the Court late and sometimes even when respondent No.2 had sat on the dias. This was a cause of inconvenience to Reader and Ahlmad and used to hamper judicial work for sending communication etc. For this, the petitioner was warned to improve but it had no effect on him. While responding to an averment that the petitioner was asked to clean toilet, it is stated that this is totally wrong and false averment made by the petitioner. As per respondent No.2, if it had been so, the petitioner could have easily complained against the same to the District & Sessions Judge. It is also stated that there was no occasion to tell the petitioner to do so, once there was a Safai Sewak working for this purpose in the house. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. I have heard the counsel for the parties. The petitioner was a temporary employee and on probation. His work and conduct was not found satisfactory during probation period. His services accordingly have been terminated by passing an innocuous order. The impugned order does not give any indication if the same is stigmatic in any manner. The order simply recites that work and conduct of the petitioner has not been found satisfactory and, therefore, his services are terminated. This order may have been passed on the basis of the report given by the officer with whom the petitioner was made to work but that report also, if CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10460 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: true, only makes a mention that his work and conduct is not satisfactory and that he does not obey the orders and does not perform his duty with due devotion. The order, thus, can not in any manner be held to be stigmatic. The submission by the counsel that the motive of the order was something else, to say that the order was stigmatic is neither substantiated from the record nor is otherwise made out. Even otherwise, as per the settled position of law, if misconduct was the motive, the order could not be termed as punitive but only if it was the foundation that it could be termed punitive. A simple order of termination as permitted by terms of appointment or as permitted by the Rules can not be held punitive even in those cases where departmental enquiry is initiated but was stopped because the employer was not sure of establishing guilt of the employee. (See Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Mazdoor Sabha, 1980 (2) SCC 593. Thus, the impugned order can not be termed as punitive or stigmatic to call for any interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. July 29,2010 khurmi ( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE