The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order of termination must be in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the appointment letter, and there should be no stigma attached to the employee by the order.

JUDGMENT

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Delay condoned. Leave Granted.

2. The judgment dated 14.07.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 1804 of 1990 (O&M) is called in question in this appeal by the original defendant. The brief facts leading to this Appeal are as under:

The respondent was appointed as conductor in Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh-1 on temporary basis on 20.08.1979. His services were terminated as he was detected in a fraud case on 18.09.1979. Suppressing the said fact of his termination, the respondent applied to the post of clerk in the Office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab on 23.05.1980 and was appointed as clerk on ad-hoc basis. Respondent joined duty on 26.05.1980 as clerk in Cooperation Department, Punjab. Government of Punjab issued a general order dated 26.10.1982 to regularize the services of ad-hoc employees as one time measure subject to the terms and conditions contained in the said order. While processing for the regularization of the ad-hoc employees, the respondent’s name was also taken into consideration. The authorities informed that the respondent had concealed the fact that he was appointed in the Transport Department and was terminated by an order of termination, relieving the respondent from duties on 22.03.1983.

3. Thereafter the respondent filed a suit for declaration that he was a regular employee and for consequential relief of permanent injunction against the appellants from terminating his services. By the judgment dated 20.10.1984 the Trial Court i.e. Learned Senior Sub Judge, Rupnagar dismissed the suit. Thereafter the respondent approached the District Court, Rupnagar by way of first appeal. However, the respondent withdrew the said appeal with liberty to file a fresh suit for challenging the legality and validity of the order of termination dated 22.03.1983. Thereafter, the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 232 of 7.12.1985 before learned Senior Sub Judge, Rupnagar for declaration that he is entitled to continue in service from 22.03.1983 and for consequential relief of salary and other emoluments. He also prayed for a declaration that the order of termination of his services dated 22.03.1983 was illegal, void and is against the principles of natural justice. The learned Senior Sub Judge Rupnagar dismissed the suit on 12.11.1987, which judgment came to be questioned by the respondent by filing Civil Appeal before the learned District Judge, Rupnagar. Learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, allowed the Appeal on 1112.04.1990 and set aside the judgment of the Trial Court dated 12.11.1987. The District Judge held that the respondent should be deemed in continuous service from 22.03.1983 and was entitled to consequential reliefs as if his services had not been terminated. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the appellants herein filed Regular Second Appeal No. RSA 1804 of 1990 (O&M) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, which came to be partly allowed on 14.07.2016. The High Court set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court to a certain extent i.e. in part. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus:

“9. In view of these facts and circumstances, the order of the Appellate Court is set aside in so far as “deemed to be in continuous service from that date, entitled to consequential reliefs as if his services had not been terminated. The Appellant shall also entitled to costs” are concerned. The Appellant are directed to held an enquiry, in accordance with law with reference to decision taken for the purpose of regularization on 23.2.1983 after giving necessary hearing to the Respondent within a period of 6 months’ from today.

10. In the meanwhile, status of the Respondent would be deemed to be under suspension. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court passed in Managing Director Ecil versus B. Karunakar reported as 1994(2) Supp SCC 391. The Respondent is entitled for subsi