The State of Punjab and Others vs Lashkar Singh

R.S. Mongia, J.—Lashkar Singh, writ petitioner (now respondent in the present L. P. A) bed been appointed as Vaccinator on 16th September, 1967, on a wholly temporary basis. Later while he was working as such in the Primary Health Centre, Adampur, his explanation was called by the Chief Medical Officer, Julluadur about his remissness in the performance of his duties in as much as he failed to give small-pox vaccination to a 7 year old child of village Kadiana Reply was submitted by the petitioner. However, his services were terminated through a telegram dated 1st November, 1974. This order was challenged by the writ-petitioner through a writ petition in this Court, which was allowed by the learned single Judge vide judgment dated 16th September, 1982. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the state has come up in appeal.

It may be observed here that initially notice of motion was issued on 21st December, 1982, but no one appeared on behalf of the respondent, and consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal was admitted on 11th April, 1983 and the operation of the judgment of the learned Single Judge was stayed. Thereafter, by way of substituted service, the notice of admission was published in the newspaper regarding Farzi date of hearing. A registered notice was also sent at the list '' known address for the actual date of hearing. Neither the respondent nor any counsel has put in appearance on his behalf.

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge had wrongly, held that the order of termination had been passed by way of punishment. He further submitted that the writ-petitioner''s services had been extended upto 31st October, 1974 and that is why he was relieved on 1st November, 1974, vide telegram Annexure P-4.

Dealing with the second point first, it may be observed that the learned Single Judge held that the extension of service of the petitioner upto 31st October, 1974 was ordered en 4th November, 1974, vide Annexure R 2, which was after his termination of services on 1st November, 1976 and was an after thought. The learned counsel for the State Produced the original record before us regarding the extension of service of the writ-petitioner. On the file it has been ordered that Shri Lashkar Singh be given extension of service upto 3Jst October, 19/4 and thereafter he should be relieved. This order was passed on the file on 22nd October, 1974. It is only that the Director gives approval to this extension vide order dated 4th November. 1974 vide Annexure R-4. It is abundantly clear from the record that the order of extension of service upto 31st October, 1974, had been passed on 22nd October, 1974 and therefore, the order dated 4th November, 1974 was not an after-thought, as held by the learned single Judge. Consequently, the petitioner could be relieved from service on 1st November, 1974.

Coming to the first point as to whether the order of termination was by way of punishment or not, the learned Single Judge, of course, held that this order was passed by way of punishment as it was punitive in nature and no regular enquiry for the alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner had been held. There is no doubt that petitioner''s explanation was called but there is nothing on the record to suggest that the order of termination was founded on that alleged misconduct. The employer has always the right to enquire regarding the suitability of an employee The petitioner being a temporary employee, had do vested right to continue in service. His services were terminated on the expiry of his last extension upto 31st October, 1974. We do not find that the alleged misconduct was even a motive for the termination of his services. Even if it be a motive that would not vitiate the order of termination, as from the record we are satisfied that the order of termination was not at all based or founded on the alleged misconduct. Consequently, we reverse the finding of the learned Single Judge on this aspect.

For the forgoing reasons, this appeal is allowed, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.