Back
2009 Supreme(UK) 601
2010 (1) U.D. 62
HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL
Prafulla C. Pant, J
Sobat Singh
Versus.
District Judge, Uttarkashi
Writ Petition No. 641 of 2008 (S/S) (Old No. 24667 of 1993)
Decided on : 07-12-2009
Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Sandeep Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 3.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of services of a temporary employee, without any stigma, may not require affording an opportunity of hearing before passing the termination order.
Headnote:
Termination of Service - Employment Dispute - U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, Rule 3 - The court examined the termination of services of a temporary employee and concluded that the termination order was without any stigma, and therefore, it was not necessary to afford any opportunity of hearing to the employee before passing the order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Process Server in the Civil Court of District Uttarkashi, sought writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order terminating his services. The petitioner claimed that he was not given any opportunity of being heard and that the termination order was arbitrary and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of the petitioner was temporary in nature and the termination order did not contain any stigma. It concluded that it was not necessary to afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the termination order.
Issues: The issues involved whether the termination of services suffered from illegality, whether an opportunity of hearing was required to be given, and whether the petitioner's services could be terminated without framing any charge against him or without affording him an opportunity of being heard.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Rule 3 of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, and the nature of the petitioner's appointment to determine that the termination order did not require an opportunity of hearing.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of termination passed by the respondent No.1.
Prafulla C. Pant, J.
By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 25.05.1993, passed by respondent No. 1, whereby the services of the petitioner are terminated.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, on record.
3. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Process Server in the Civil Court of District Uttarkashi, vide order dated 25.07.1983 (copy Annexure –1 to he writ petition) issued by the District Judge, Uttarkashi. It is stated that the petitioner had done his work to the utmost satisfaction of his superior officers. It is further stated that the petitioner went on medical leave for the period 16.12.1989 to 28.02.1990, and remained hospitalized for treatment of his mental illness. He resumed his duties on 01.03.1990. In Para 8 of the writ petition it is stated by the writ petitioner that in the carrier of his 10 year’s service, there had been no complaint relating to his work. He performed his duties with honesty and sincerity. However, the District Judge, Uttarkashi (respondent No. 1) vide his order dated 25.05.1993, terminated the services of the petitioner with immediate effect. Hence, this writ petition was filed before the Allahabad High Court on the ground that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard, and the impugned order suffers from arbitrariness, and also violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
4.This writ petition, which was filed before the Allahabad High Court on 9th of July 1993, is received by this Court under Section 35 of the U.P. Re-organization Act, 2000 (Central Act No 29 of 2000), in the year 2008, for its disposal.
5.In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent District Judge, Uttarkashi, before Allahabad High Court, it is admitted that the petitioner was appointed as Process Server, in the year 1983, and his services were terminated vide impugned order dated 25.05.1993. It is also not disputed that the petitioner remained on medical leave from 16.12.1989 to 29.03.1990, and certificate was issued by Senior Medical Superintendent of Mental Hospital, Bareilly, regarding his treatment. Rest of the contents of the writ petition are not admitted as pleaded by the petitioner. In reply to Para 8 of the writ petition, it has been stated that petitioner was served with notice dated 11.07.1990, by the District Judge, Uttarkashi, and warning was issued to him for his conduct. A fine of Rs. 50/- was also imposed on him. The petitioner submitted apology in response to the notice issued by the District Judge, on which enquiry against him was dropped. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that a complaint was received against the petitioner from a senior member of the staff on which enquiry was directed on 19.12.1989, for act of gross indiscipline and misconduct. He was placed under suspension, but he sought apology and said enquiry was also dropped on 11.05.1990. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that when the petitioner was posted under Munsif, Purola in Uttarkashi, he was given 21 summons for getting served on the parties, but the summons were not served by him in accordance in law, and the concerned judicial officer sought explanation from the petitioner, who refused to reply the same, on which warnings were issued to the petitioner. Lastly, it is stated that the petitioner’s services were terminated under U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975.
6. In the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner the averments made in the writ petition are reiterated.
7. Before further discussion, this Court thinks it just and proper to quote the relevant provisions of law, applicable to the case. Rul
