The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of adherence to the principles of natural justice, fair play, and proper inquiry before penal action in the termination of daily rated services.

Narinder Thakur, Honble Member (Judl.):The present original application has been filed by the applicant against the impugned order dated 2.2.2000 (Annexure-A/viii) whereby the daily rated services of the applicant have been terminated. The applicant has also challenged the impugned order dated 2.2.2000 Annexure-A/ix) whereby respondent No.3 has asked the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs.5200/- and the stepny of the vehicle.

2. The relevant facts are that the applicant was initially engaged as a daily wager driver w.e.f. 13.4.1994, but later on the name of the applicant was duly sponsored through the Employment Exchange (Annexure-A/xii). The applicant was deployed to driver the vehicle of the respondent No.3 The applicant discharged his duties faithfully and deligently and experience certificates issued to him by various officers are placed on record as Annexure-A/1 to A-v. It is alleged that on 5.1.2000 (Annexure-A/vi),the present officer Shri Sandeep Kumar B.D.O., Development Block Jubbal-Kotkhai issued a show cause notice to the applicant on the basis of the personnel whims and fancies. The reply to the show cause has also issued impugned order on 2.2.2000 (Annexure -A/IX), whereby he directed the applicant to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,200/- alongwith the stepany of the vehicle in the office of Respodent No. 3 was submitted by the applicant on 18.1.2000 (Annexure-A/VIIl). On 2.2.2000 Annexure-A/VII), respondent no.3 terminated the services of the applicant in complete contravention to the principle of natural justice, equity and rule of law. The respondent No.3 within seven days from the date of issuance of the said order.

3. The reply has been filed by respondent and it has been contended that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with the principle of natural justice after giving due opportunity to the applicant. It is further contended that the applicant was not discharging his duties deligently (Annexure-R/I to R-IX), and to the satisfaction of respondent No. 3 which would be evident from the reply and Annexure attached with the reply that the applicant was mis-using his position since inception. It is stated that earlier also the predecessor in the interest of respondent No. 3 has issued memorandum, show cause notice to the applicant. It is alleged that the applicant is habitual of misusing the funds and dis-obeying of the orders of his superiors. It is stated that the reply of the applicant to the show cause notice was not found satisfactory and hence his services were rightly terminated. It is further stated that the applicant was given various opportunity to improve himself but the applicant did not pay any heed and ultimately respondent No. 3 has taken the harsh step in accordance with law. It is stated that because the applicant has taken the vehicle at his own towards Chirgaon and Bhatwari without any purpose and the order of respondent No. 3, therefore, the applicant is solely liable to deposit the amount and this fact was also earlier brought to the notice of the applicant vide Annexure-R/V), The applicant is also bound to hand over the stapeny in the office of respondent No. 3, since, it is the duty of Driver. But the applicant despite complying with the letter dated 2.2.2000 (Annexure-R/IX) has neither deposited the amount nor handed over the stapeny in the office of respondent No. 3.

4. Rejoinder has also been filed by the applicant wherein he has denied the contents of the reply and has stated that the impugned action of the respondent department amounts too unfair labour practice of the impugned action has been undertaken in utter dis-regards of the principle of natural justice in the conduct of domestic inquiry coupled with undue haste. Principle of natural justice have not been observed in as such as the respondent department has relied upon the un-recorded statement of the person who were animosity towards the applicant and the applicant has not afforded an opportunity to cross examine