Kahan Chand vs State Of H.P. And Another

Satyen Vaidya, J

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for grant of following substantive reliefs:

“i) That the impugned order dated 29.01.2001, Annexure A-2 and order dated 6.8.2016, Annexure A-5, may kindly be quashed and set-aside, with all consequential benefits.

ii) That the respondents may be directed to reinstate the applicant in service and he may be held entitled to continuity in service with seniority and the period of absence may be treated as dies non, with all consequential benefits.

iii) That the respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the applicant from the date other similarly situated persons have been regularized by the department with all consequential benefits.”

The petitioner worked as ‘Chainman’ with respondent No.2 w.e.f. 11.11.1994 till 15.02.2001. His employment was on daily wage basis with breaks in between.

Respondent No.2 issued show cause notice dated 9.10.2000, requiring petitioner to explain his conduct in respect of following:

(i) that the petitioner had been found involved in illegal transportation of huge quantity of liquor and was arrayed as an accused in case FIR No.92/2000 dated 13.8.2000 under Section 61-1-14 of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act;

(ii) That on 28.6.2000 petitioner had taken fight with ‘Chainman’ named Hem Raj under the influence of liquor. Petitioner was warned in this respect vide warning letter dated 4.7.2000, however, no improvement was found in his conduct; and

(iii) That petitioner remained absent from his duties for the period 5.5.1999 to 24.5.1999 (20 days), 27.8.1999, 2.9.1999, 10.9.1999 and 15.9.1999, (4 days), 3.1.2000, 5.1.2000 to 13.2.2000, (41 days), 6.4.2000 to 18.4.2000 (13 days) and 10.8.2000 to 17.8.2000 and 19.8.2000 (9 days).

It was notified to the petitioner that the department was proposing to dispense with the services of petitioner for aforesaid reasons. Petitioner was thus required to show cause as to why his services be not dispensed with.

Petitioner submitted his response to show cause notice dated 9.10.2000, however, the same was not found satisfactory and finally the services of petitioner were ordered to be dispensed with w.e.f. 15.2.2001 vide office order dated 29.1.2001 issued by respondent No.2.

Petitioner assailed order dated 29.1.2001 before this Court by way of CWP(T) No. 7787 of 2008 and his petition was disposed of on 11.11.2010 in following terms:

“The matter was heard for some time. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has instructions not to press the present petition however liberty be granted to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents. Liberty granted. Any such representation made by the petitioner shall be considered and decided within a period of three months from the date of receipt thereof. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.”

In the meanwhile, petitioner was acquitted by the Criminal Court of the charge under Section 61-1-14 of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act. Petitioner again made a representation, which according to petitioner, remained unattended. Petitioner filed another petition being OA No. 800 of 2016 before the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 10.5.2016 in the following terms:

“There shall be a direction to respondent No.2 to take a decision on the representation of the applicant within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order as well as a copy of the present original application before the said authority. Needless to say that applicant shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard, if so desired”.

The representation of petitioner was decided by respondent No.2 vide office order dated 6.8.2016. Hence, the present petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that despite his acquittal in a case involving charge under Section 61-1-14 of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, his termination on the same charge was not sustainable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the termination of petitioner vide office order dated 29.1.2001 is illegal inasmuch as no inquiry was held against petitioner and petitioner was not even heard before passing of orders which had civil and evil consequences.

The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be rejected firstly for the reason that the petitioner did not hold any civil post, therefore, there was no requirement to hold regular inquiry against petitioner under Civil Services Rules, his services were on daily wage basis with breaks and with no permanency attached thereto and, secondly, besides the allegation of being involved in a criminal case, petitioner was also alleged to have remained absent for substantial number of days unauthorisedly. Petitioner was made aware about such allegation in express terms vide show cause notice dated 9.10.2000.

The office order dated 29.1.2001, whereby the services of petitioner were ordered to be dispensed with clearly recorded that in response to show cause notice, petitioner had submitted his reply. However, no such reply was found on the file of instant petition. On 24.4.2023, this Court had directed the respondents to produce the original records. On 22.5.2023, the records were produced and the matter was heard further. On perusal of record, it was found that petitioner had submitted a reply to show cause notice dated 9.10.2000. In his reply, petitioner had only attended to the allegation regarding his involvement in a criminal case. No reply was submitted to the allegation with respect to his unauthorized absence.

The petitioner, as noticed above, was working only on daily wage basis. In this view of the matter, there can be said to be sufficient compliance of principles of natural justice in the facts of the case. The impugned order dated 29.1.2001, reveals that respondent No.2 had dealt with all the issues involved and had thereafter issued the order. Due application of mind is reflected from office order dated 29.1.2001.

The conduct of petitioner approaching the Courts time and again will not improve his case as the cause of action remained the same. The rejection of his representation by respondent No.2 vide office order dated 6.8.2016 also cannot be faulted for the same reasons which have been considered for validation of office order dated 29.1.2001. There is due application of mind and all the aspects of the matter have been considered. Since, the petitioner had failed rather avoided to satisfactorily account for the period of his unauthorized absence, no interference can be made in the impugned orders dated 29.1.2001 and 6.8.2016.

In result, the petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.