Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab
For the Respondent:Mr. Sushane Puri, Advocate, for Mr. K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Namit Kumar, J.

Having lost before the Courts below, by recording the concurrent finding, the State of Punjab has filed the instant appeal impugning the judgments and decrees dated 03.02.1990 and 25.05.1992, passed by the said Courts, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent was decreed and the appeal preferred by the State was dismissed by upholding the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Parties to the lis are hereinafter shall be referred to by their original position before the trial Court.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff was appointed as Dumper Operator on 13.06.1985, and his services were terminated on 10.07.1987. The said termination was impugned by the plaintiff by filing a civil suit for declaration, which was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.02.1990. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court, reads as under:-

"6. It is the admitted case of the parties that the plaintiff was appointed as a Dumper operator with effect from 13.6.85 and that his services were terminated with effect from 10.7.87 on the ground that there was a report against him by the senior Superintendent of Police Gurdaspur to the effect that his presence at the Ranjit Sagar Dam was a threat to the security of the Dam. Admittedly no charge sheet/Departmental inquiry or any other proceedings were taken against him before terminating his services; Ranjit Singh DW-1 the Sub Divisional Officer concerned has deposed that the Senior Superintendent of Police had reported against the plaintiff that he was undesirable and risk to the security of the Dam and had been arrested several times being a desperate character. He has further deposed that the Senior Superintendent of Police has suggested that the plaintiff was not a fit person to be kept in service at such a sensitive place. In support of his statement he has produced the original letter Ex. D-l received from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur. In this letter, the senior Superintendent of police had no doubt reported that the plaintiff had been found undesirable and a risk to the security of the Dam and had further reported that the plaintiff had been arrested on several occasions and was of desperate character and had, accordingly suggested that such a man should not be kept in the service at such a sensitive place. But this letter does not in any way indicate that any opportunity of being heard had been granted to the plaintiff before making these observations. In these circumstances, the termination of the services of the plaintiff clearly amounts to punishment without affording him any opportunity to explain his position. Apart from that the Senior Superintendent of Police had merely suggested that the plaintiff should not be kept in service at such a sensitive place. This recommendation could have been easily given effect to by just merely transferring the plaintiff from this Dam to a non-sensitive area.

7. The learned Govt. Pleader has cited para 24 of the Certified standing Orders in respect of the work charge staff of Ranjit Sagar Dam, Shahpur Kandi. Sub para (1) whereof provides that the service of a workman who has been in continuous employment for not less than one year in the establishment, may be terminated if he is declared as a traitor or as a person likely to jeopardise the safety of the establishment or if he develops a serious defect in the eye-sight or hearing or mental or a physical deficiency. It further provides that such termination of services shall be effected for reasons to be recorded and shall be subject to the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the management shall give to the workman one month's notice in writing or salary in lieu thereof. It next provides that this clause shall not involve retrenchment or closure. In my opinion, this provision is hardly any help to the defendants. Firstly there is no plea in the written state