The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of a regular employee's services without a regular inquiry and based on an anonymous complaint is prima facie illegal, entitling the employee to interim relief.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Sharma, J. - Instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the judgment dated 23.10.2018, passed by learned District Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.,in CMA No.30-S/14 of 2018, titled as Roshan Lal Sharma versus Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Limited, affirming the order dated 7.9.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.5, Shimla, District Shimla,HP,in CMA No.221-6 of 2018 in Civil Suit No.116-1 of 2018, whereby an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC having been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintif), praying therein for stay of termination order dated 10.8.2018, passed by the respondent ( hereinafter referred to as the defendant- bank) during the pendency of the suit, came to be dismissed.

2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit (Annexure P-1) for declaration to the effect that termination order dated 10.8.2018, passed by the defendant-bank in Ref. No.StCB/ HO/Estt.Pers-1852/5528/2018-19, is bad, illegal, wrong, void ab-initio and without jurisdiction. Alongwith the aforesaid suit, plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, praying therein that order referred hereinabove, may be stayed during the pendency of present suit, however, fact remains that application referred hereinabove, came to be dismissed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.5, Shimla, H.P. Learned Civil Judge while dismissing the application observed that service matters falls within the Special Domain of the Hon''ble Central Administrative Tribunal for which, applicant should have knocked the right forum for claiming the relief.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, passed by learned Civil Judge, plaintiff preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC in the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla, H.P, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 23.10.2018. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

5. Certain undisputed facts, as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff after having been discharged from Para Military Force ( for short ''CRPF'') came to be appointed as Sub Helper in the defendant-Bank. It is not in dispute that plaintiff was appointed against the post of Sub Helper on the basis of application made by him pursuant to the advertisement issued by the defendant-bank in the daily news paper. It is also not in dispute that plaintiff applied for the post of Sub-Helper against reserve post of ex-serviceman. Plaintiff at the time of making application had submitted all the documents. Since, application and documents of the plaintiff were found proper at the time of scrutiny, which was done prior to written test, he was allowed to sit in written examination. Plaintiff, who had cleared the written test was made to participate in personal interview, whereafter on the basis of overall performance, he was offered appointment against the post of Sub Helper on contract basis. Initially, the plaintiff was appointed on contract basis, which was renewed from year to year basis. But pleadings adduced on record reveal that subsequently the services of the plaintiff were regularized against the post of Sub Helper, now termed as Peon. After regularization of the plaintiff, somebody represented to His excellency The Governor of Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that plaintiff and other persons procured appointments from the defendant-bank by concealing material facts and as such, inquiry came to be constituted. Defendant -Bank constituted inquiry and served show cause notice to the plaintiff on 9.9.2014, calling upon him to furnish his reply. Plaintiff by way of reply refuted the allegations raised against him and reiterated that he is ex-serviceman retired from CRPF and as such, his appointment is as per la