Contractual employees are entitled to the protection of the principles of natural justice before any order with civil consequences is passed. Disciplinary action must be initiated by the competent authority, and orders based on predetermined notions or incorrect factual premises are legally unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of office letter No. HSIIDC:PER:2022:4863-4867 dated 07.12.2022 (Annexure P-50) passed by respondent No.3.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was deputed as a Patwari at HSIIDC, IMT, Manesar, since the year 2000. The petitioner’s engagement was through Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam Limited. The execution petition bearing No.EXE-1605 of 2015 was filed by land owner, namely, Ram Mehar, for the release of the compensation for acquired land. During the execution proceedings, several orders were passed including coercive steps regarding attachment of the properties and the petitioner, along with his counsel, appeared on 31.03.2022 and, on the basis of the approval and written communication by the Assistant General Manager dated 29.03.2022, made a statement that a certain amount had been received by way of attachment from the account of HSIIDC, out of which a certain amount was the share of the decree holders. The aforesaid statement was made entirely on the basis of written instructions dated 29.03.2022. Further, on the basis of letter written by an Officer with the Advocate General Office and without issuing any show cause notice, the impugned order dated 07.12.2022 (Annexure P-50) was passed. The impugned order is liable to be set aside, firstly, on the ground that even a temporary employee is entitled to the protection of the principles of natural justice, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Brijesh Kumar & another 2024 INSC 638; further, any disciplinary action, if at all, has to be taken by HKRNL and HSIIDC has no jurisdiction to pass the disengagement order. Further, the order has been passed in a predetermined manner, actuated on the ipse dixit of the letter dated 16.11.2022, whereas, the correct facts clearly indicate that the petitioner had made a statement on the basis of official communication before the Executing Court. Further, Civil Revision No.4252 of 2016 titled Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructural Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Ram Mehar and others, on the basis of which the aforementioned letter dated 16.11.2022 was written, has already been disposed of as infructuous by this Court vide order dated 06.03.2020 (Annexure P-49). Further, the petitioner continued to represent the respondents, however, two of the representations are available on record as Annexures P-54 and P-55.

3. He further refers to the various orders passed by the Executing Court which are available on record as Annexures P-1 to P-46. To substantiate his arguments, he submits that the petitioner has merely been made a scapegoat on the basis of the letter dated 16.11.2022 and has produced the letter dated 29.03.2022 before this Court which is taken on record as Mark ‘X’. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place in the file. Copy thereof has been handed over to the learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4.

4. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 submits that the impugned order was passed on 07.12.2022 and that the petitioner remained indolent and approached this Court after an inordinate delay. However, he could not controvert the fact that since the petitioner was deployed through respondent No.6 i.e. HKRNL, respondent No.6 is the competent authority to take disciplinary action. He further, upon perusal of the letter dated 29.03.2022 and the order dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure P-