Dharam Pal and Another vs Faridabad Complex Administration

D.V. Sehgal, J.—This revision petition by the plaintiff petitioners is directed against the order dated 17-2-1987 passed by the learned Sub Judge. Second Class, Faridabad, whereby their application for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed.

The petitioners had filed the suit calling in question the order of termination of their services During the course of evidence, Siraj-ud-din Assistant from the office of the Faridabad Complex Administration appeared as D W. I. During the course of his cross-examination, he deposed that the services of the petitioners were terminated because of their absence from duty. He admitted that no reasonable opportunity had been afforded to them before the impugned orders of termination of their services were passed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they had all along been under the impression that their services had been terminated simply on the ground that they were temporary hands. The fact that they were eased out of service on the alleged misconduct of absence from duty came to their notice for the first times when Siraj ud din D.W. 1 appeared in the witness-box. They, therefore, made the application for amendment of their plant.

In view of the judgment of the final Court in Jarnail Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, , it is by now well settled that even a temporary or ad-hoc employee cannot be visited with penal consequences on the ground of misconduct without affording him opportunity of hearing and holding an inquiry into the misconduct consistent with the rules of natural justice. The cause of action remains to be the wrongful termination of the services of the petitioners. No injury was going to be caused to the defendant-respondent in case they were allowed to add an additional ground to attack the impugned orders.

I am, therefore, of the considered view that the learned trial Court committed an error of jurisdiction in disallowing the application of the petitioners for amendment of the plaint. The additional ground of attack was not going to change the nature of the suit nor the cause of action

Consequently, I allow this revision petition and set aside the order dated 17-2-1987 passed by the learned Sub Judge, 3rd Class, Faridibad. I further allow the application under Order VI, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the petitioners. They shall now file their amended plaint in the trial Court and the suit shall be proceeded with on merits The parties to bear their own costs.

The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the trial Court on 17-10-1988.