AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Termination Order dated 25.01.2013 (Annexure P-10) and the prayer that petitioner be reinstated with all consequential benefits.
It is inter alia submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was previously appointed as Data Entry Operator in the respondent-Department on 12.12.2007. Petitioner had worked on the said post till 19.08.2008. Vide order dated 18.08.2008 (Annexure P-1), petitioner was appointed as Accounts Assistant and was posted at Kaithal. Ld. Senior Counsel refers to the Experience Certificates (Annexures P-2 to P-8) awarded to the petitioner by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal from 26.06.2009 upto 14.12.2012 respectively, to submit that in all the said Certificates, work and conduct of the petitioner has been found to be exemplary.
It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner was transferred and posted as Accounts Assistant at Guhla Block since 22.11.2012. Learned Senior Counsel contends that immediately upon his posting at Guhla, Performance Report dated 10.01.2013 (Annexure P-9) was given by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer/BDPO Guhla; wherein it was mentioned that petitioner is neither attending office on right time nor taking interest in work. It is submitted that based on the said Report, services of the petitioner came to be terminated vide impugned order dated 25.01.2013 (Annexure P-10).
Learned Senior Counsel contends that the entire exercise of termination of the petitioner was undergone at the behest of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal, who was desirous of posting respondent No.6, namely, Sh. Yashpal Singh in place of the petitioner. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel refers to the averments made in para 2 of the short replication dated 15.05.2015 filed by the petitioner to be effect that the “…… Actual reason of procuring the report (P-9) against the petitioner was that the Additional Deputy Commissioner was interested to appoint one Mr. Yashpal who was in the waiting list of the selection made in the year 2012 and to accommodate said Yashpal, the Additional Deputy Commissioner called the report from the BDPO, Pundri by hand vide letter dated 9296-9301 dated 10.1.2013 and the BDPO has submitted the report (P-9) on the same date by letter no. Spl1. Dated 10.1.2013 and by relieving the petitioner the said Yashpal was joined at the place on the petitioner on the same date. So, this clearly demonstrate the intention to relieve the petitioner to accommodate one Yashpal who was in the waiting list of Selection held in the year 2012. The respondents have not even disputed that no explanation of the petitioner was obtained and no opportunity of any kind was granted to the petitioner before passing the impugned order (Annexure P-10).”
It is submitted that it is for this reason that Report dated 10.01.2013 (Annexure P-9) was procured by the concerned Additional Deputy Commissioner and petitioner was ousted vide impugned order of Termination dated 25.01.2013 (Annexure P-10); whereafter Sh. Yashpal Singh/respondent no.6 herein, was brought in place of the petitioner.
Learned Senior Counsel contends that as per the relevant Govt. Instructions, it is the general system and practice that confidential report of subordinate officer was to be given by an officer who has seen the performance of that employee for at least 3 months. It is submitted that in the present case, BDPO, namely, Sh. Suraj Bhan who had submitted adverse Report dated 10.01.2013 (Annexure P-9) had seen the work of the petitioner only for 23 days, as he had been posted as BDPO at Guhla Block only on 18.12.2012. It is contended that as such, as per the relevant Instructions, the concerned BDPO was not competent to comment on the work and conduct of the petitioner.
It is further submitted that even otherwise, the report dated 10.1.2013 is incorrect as a perusal of the attendance of the petitioner from 01.12.2012 to 31.12.2012 (Annexure P-11) and 01.01.2013 to 28.01.2013 (Annexure P-12) would clearly show that petitioner is attending his duties and he has never been shown absent.
It is also submitted that persons junior to the petitioner have been retained in service; whereas services of the petitioner have been arbitrarily terminated. By way of example, learned Senior counsel refers to case of one Sh. Harish Tagra who was junior to the petitioner and who had been issued many warnings many times regarding various lapses. It is contended that yet, said Mr. Harish Tagra has been retained in service; whereas petitioner has been terminated.
It is lastly, submitted that termination of the petitioner is illegal in terms of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
He accordingly prays that the present Writ Petition be allowed; and the impugned order of Termination dated 25.01.2013 (Annexure P-10) be set aside.
Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and points out that the petitioner was a contractual employee. As such, petitioner cannot seek protection of the Govt. Instructions, as per which, it is required that the confidential report should be written by a superior officer after seeing the performance of the employee for at least 3 months. It is submitted that petitioner was not willing to be shifted to Guhla Block. So, after his transfer, he did not take interest in the daily work and also came late to office and showed insubordination and became slow worker in order to be shifted in Kaithal. It was in this background that the Report dated 10.01.2013 (Annexure P-9) came to be submitted; wherein it is categorically mentioned that petitioner “neither attends office on right time nor taking interest in work.” Further this led to passing of the impugned order dated 25.01.2013 at which time, petitioner was given remuneration equal to 15 days’ pay as per Clause 10 of the Agreement dated 01.10.2012 (Annexure R-1).
It is pointed out that even in the impugned order dated 25.01.2013 (Annexure P-10), it is recorded that services of the petitioner have been terminated due to his indiscipline and poor performance. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.
Learned counsel for respondent No.6 has also opposed contentions of the petitioner by submitting that appointment of respondent No.6 has no connection with the appointment of the petitioner. It is pointed out that respondent No.6 was appointed in pursuance to a separate Advertisement of 2012 at which point, petitioner was already working. As such, petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. He accordingly prays that the present Writ Petition be dismissed with exemplary costs.
No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions of the petitioner.
Succinctly put, the case of the petitioner is that petitioner was posted at Guhla Block and adverse Report dated 10.01.2013 (Anexure P-9) was given by the BDPO, Guhla Block at the behest of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, “who was was interested to appoint one Mr. Yashpal who was in the waiting list of the selection made in the year 2012 and to accommodate said Yashpal, the Additional Deputy Commissioner called the report from the BDPO, Pundri by hand vide letter dated 9296-9301 dated 10.1.2013 and the BDPO has submitted the report (P-9) on the same date by letter no. Spl1. Dated 10.1.2013 and by relieving the petitioner the said Yashpal was joined at the place on the petitioner on the same date. So this clearly demonstrate the intention to relieve the petitioner to accommodate one Yashpal who was in the waiting list of Selection held in the year 2012.”
However, a perusal of the record shows that there is no truth whatsoever to the said scurrilous allegations made by the petitioner. Respondent No. 6 has clearly stated in his reply dated 03.03.2025 that the respondent No.6 had been appointed against the post of Accounts Assistant which was advertised vide Advertisement dated 16.03.2012 (Annexure R-6/1). The last date for submission of application form was 31.03.2012. The respondent No.6 had applied for the said post of Accounts Assistant; and after going through the written examination and interview, he has secured 1st position as per Result dated 26.11.2012 (Annexure R-6/2); and was posted and given appointment at Guhla Block of District Kaithal vide Appointment Letter dated 04.02.2013 (Annexure R-6/3). Clearly therefore, respondent No.6 has been appointed on a post which was independently advertised; and the same has no connection with the appointment/posting/transfer of the petitioner. It is also evident from the above that petitioner was already working on the said post on 16.03.2012 at the time of advertisement. However, none of these facts have been disclosed in the writ petition. Rather, baseless allegations to the contrary have been made.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is also unable to refute the fact that petitioner is a contractual employee and, thus, benefits of cited Govt. Instructions are not applicable. Petitioner has been unable to refute assertions made in the impugned order to the effect that petitioner was terminated due to his “indiscipline attitude and poor performance.”
Keeping in view the above position, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed.
Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.