ORDER: The order of termination dated 8.7.1996 issued by the Commissioner, Kandili Panchayat Union, the first respondent herein, against the petitioner, is under challenge in this writ petition, seeking for quashing of the same through a writ of certiorarified mandamus.

2. Relevant facts are as follows:

(a) K.Sampath, the petitioner herein joined as Overhead Tank Operator in the Panchayat Union in 1989 the first respondent herein. Initially, his monthly salary was Rs.60. Subsequently, it was increased to Rs. 100 and thereafter to Rs. 110.

(b) The petitioner and his associates have made a demand through certain representations for regularisation of their servicers. Their demand was not considered. The petitioner continued to work only as a temporary servant.

(c) Suddenly, the petitioner was shocked to see that the impugned order dated 8.7.1996 was affixed on his house door intimating that his services were terminated from the forenoon of 9.7.1996 for the reason that he was not working satisfactory. By the very same impugned order, it was indicated that one Veerabadran, the second respondent herein was appointed in his place. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed.

3. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that the impugned order is mala fide, as the same was done under political pressure and the termination of the services of the petitioner on the ground that he was not working properly, was without prior notice and therefore, the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice and fundamental rights as guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent refuting the allegations contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, stating that the petitioner, who was working as Overhead Tank Operator, was not performing his duties properly and therefore, the Village Panchayat, on 8.7.1996, had resolved to terminate the petitioner and recommended for new appointment of the second respondentVeerabadran, and in pursuance of the said resolution, the first respondent issued the impugned order. It is further stated that the petitioner’s job is purely on temporary basis and as such, the impugned order is sustainable.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the strength of the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (i) Surendra Kemar Verma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, (1981)1 L.L.J. 386; (ii) D.P.Berejee v. S.N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 983 and (iii) V.P.Ahuja v. State of Punjab, (2000)3 S.C.C. 239 would submit that the impugned order is stigmatic and as such, failure to conduct enquiry by giving opportunity to the petitioner, would vitiate the impugned order.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard the learned counsel for the first respondent.

7. While deciding the issue, it would be proper to look into the impugned order. The impugned order dated 8.7.1996 would merely say that the petitioner was not working properly and therefore, his services were terminated and in his place, which is a temporary one, one Veerabadran, the second respondent herein is appointed.

8. Thus, it is clear that the first respondent passed the order of termination, since according to him, the petitioner was not working properly and as such, his work was not satisfactory.

9. It is settled law that if the findings as against the delinquent were arrived at in inquiry as to misconduct, behind the back of the delinquent, the simple order of termination will be bad, as the same is founded on the allegations regarding misconduct. If the inquiry was not held and no finding was arrived at, in order words, the employer was not inclined to conduct the inquiry, but at the same time, he did not want to continue the employee against whom there were complaints, it will only be a case of motive and that the order would not be bad.

10. Similar is the position i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document