The court affirmed that an employee cannot be terminated without proper inquiry and adherence to disciplinary procedures, especially when no fraud or misrepresentation occurred during appointment.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned termination order dated 13.06.2022 (Annexure P-9) issued by the Respondents, whereby the services of the petitioner as Manager Grade-II were terminated. It is further prayed that a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction be issued declaring that the appointment of the petitioner as Manager Grade-II, made on 05.02.2010 (Annexure P-3), does not suffer from any infirmity.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly stated, the genesis of the present dispute lies in an advertisement (Annexure P-1) published by the Haryana State Warehousing Corporation on 29.08.2009, inviting applications for four (4) posts of Manager Grade-II. The break-up of the posts was as follows:

a. Two posts for the General Category.

b. One post for the SC Category.

c. One post for the BCA category

3. The petitioner, being fully eligible, applied for a post under the General Category. A duly constituted Selection Committee interviewed the candidates and, vide its proceedings (Annexure P-2) dated 30.01.2010, selected the petitioner. The selection list (Annexure P-2) explicitly shows the petitioner was selected at Merit No. 2 under the General Category, alongside one Mr. Yatendra Veer Tyagi at Merit No. 1. One Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singhmar was selected against the SC category post, and Mr. Rajeshwar Kumar against the BCA category post.

4. Consequent to his selection, the petitioner was issued an appointment letter (Annexure P-3) dated 05.02.2010 for the post of Manager Grade-II. The petitioner accepted the appointment and joined the service on 03.03.2010. He continued in service without any blemish to his record. The petitioner successfully completed his probation period, which was duly declared vide letter (Annexure P-4) dated 14/25.03.2013. However, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singhmar, the candidate selected against the lone SC category post, submitted his resignation on 10.02.2011 (Annexure P-5) after being selected as an Agriculture Development Officer in the Haryana Agriculture Department.

5. The petitioner continued his service and, as per the provisional gradation list of Manager Grade-II (Annexure P-6) showing the position as on 01.12.2013, the petitioner was the second senior-most official in that cadre. After more than 12 years of uninterrupted service, the petitioner was suddenly issued a Show Cause Notice dated 29.04.2022 (Annexure P-7). The sole ground for the notice was an allegation that the petitioner's selection in 2010 was made against the “roster point meant for the SC category,” and not against the General Category as he had applied for and believed he was selected under.

6. The petitioner submitted a detailed and reasoned reply (Annexure P-8) dated 23.05.2022. In his reply, he contested the allegation, relying on the advertisement (P-1), the selection proceedings (P-2), and his appointment letter (P-3) to assert that he was rightfully selected and appointed under the General Category. He also highlighted that the reserved SC category post was, in fact, vacant after the resignation of Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singhmar.

7. Disregarding his submissions, the Respondent-Corporation passed the impugned order of termination dated 13.06.2022 (Annexure P-9), which was conveyed to the petitioner on 15.06.2022. The order terminated the petitioner's services on the ground that he was wrongly appointed against a post reserved for the SC category. Aggrieved by this termination, which came after over 12 years of service, the petitioner has invoked the