1. The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent preferred by the appellant- Kuljeet Singh is directed against judgment and order dated 13.03.2007 rendered by the learned Writ Court, holding that the appellant, who was working on the post of Helper as probationer was rightly discharged from service. It was further held that a notice to provide him opportunity to explain his conduct was sufficient. The learned Writ Court held that order dated 13.05.2004 was merely an order of discharge which could not have been regarded as order of dismissal warranting holding of a regular departmental enquiry.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant- writ petitioner was appointed as Helper on compassionate grounds on 03.07.2003. He was to remain on probation for a period of one year which was to expire on 03.07.2004. His work and conduct during the period of probation was found unsatisfactory and it was held that on account of his negligence theft of a Generator Set has taken place from the premises of the Corporation. The order dated 13.05.2004 terminating the services of the appellant, which has been upheld by the learned Writ Court, would read as under:-

"Whereas you were appointed in this Organisation on compassionate grounds after the expiry of your father, who died while in service.

Whereas on your request enabling you to appear in the examination you were posted in the Regional Office, Jammu.

Whereas throughout your stay in the Regional Office, Jammu, it has been observed that you have never been serious in performing your duties and numberless explanations had been called from you.

Whereas on 16th of April, you were put on a duty roaster for duties from 9 P.M. to 7 A.M. the theft of Generating Set has taken place. Whereas it has been reported by the Enquiry Committee that you had interchanged your duty shift with some other Chowkidar of your own with the result due to your carelessness and negligence the theft of above Gen. Set has taken place.

Whereas the Enquiry Committee in their report also has substantiated the fact that you have never been punctual in your duties so much so the Liaison Officer had recommended a strict disciplinary action against you besides your transfer.

Whereas the Gen. Set was in the office on 16.04.2004 till the closure of the office and it got lost once the office closed which is a sufficient proof that you have been careless about your duties.

Whereas it has been reported that you are involved in other theft cases as well though you have made good the losses but after taking a lenient view, no action was taken against you. Moreover, you have been again on unauthorised absence w.e.f. 17th April, 2004 till 28th April as reported by the concerned officer which clearly indicates that you are not taking your job seriously and that you left the office at the mercy of God of your own.

Consequent upon above and heavy loss occurring to the Corporation your services are being terminated forthwith. Before issuing final orders still you are once again given a chance for explaining your position and nullifying the charges against you within 2 days failing which termination orders shall be issued without further notice."

3. Mrs. Sindhu Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the order terminating the services of the appellant is ex facie a stigmatic order which proceeds on the assumption that the appellant has been negligent in performing his duties which resulted in stealing of a Generator Set. According to the learned counsel, in the later paras of the order the appellant has been dubbed as a thief being involved in other theft cases. Once the aforesaid conclusion is reached by the respondents then such an order has to be regarded as an order of dismissal which could not have been passed without holding a regular departmental enquiry. Mrs. Sharma has relied upon Regulations known as the Jammu and Kashmir State Agro Industries Development Corporation Service Regulations, which co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document