Lekh Ram vs The State of Haryana and Others

A.L. Bahri, J.—The order of termination of the services of Lekh Ram petitioner by Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar vide Annexure P.4, dated 21st March, 1991, is under challenge in this writ petition. After the aforesaid order was passed, the petitioner was relieved of his services vide letter dated 11 th July, 1991 (Annexure P-5) from Municipal Committee, Palwal. The petitioner was appointed as Fireman by the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar-respondent No. 2, on 30th May, 1990, (Annexure P-1). Subsequently, he was transferred to Municipal Committee, Palwal under orders of the Director, Local Government, Haryana, on 7th January. 1991 (Annexure P-2). Apprehending that his services were likely to be terminated by the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar, he filed Civil Writ Petition No. 5021 of 1994 in this Court which was disposed of on 5th April, 1991, by the Division Bench with the direction to the petitioner to make representation against his apprehended termination by April 15, 1991 and in the meantime, his services were not to be terminated This order was passed without issuing notice to the respondents in that writ petition.

As per allegations of the petitioner, representation was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar-respondent No. 2 in July, 1991. As already stated above, the order of termination has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar, on 21st March, 1991, and in consequence thereof, the petitioner was relieved of his services on 11th July, 1991. It is stated that on the contempt petition when action was taken, the petitioner was allowed to resume his duty.

After the petitioner was transferred to the Municipal Committee, Palwal, the Deputy Commissioner of Yamuna Nagar, who was the Administrator of the Municipal Committee of Yamuna Nagar, ceased to have control over the petitioner and could not pass the order terminating his services. The Deputy Commissioner Yamuna Nagar could only pass order relating to the Fireman working with the Municipal Committee of Yamuna Nagar.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 argued that the petitioner obtained service at Yamuna Nagar without disclosing that he was already in service at Municipal Committee, Palwal. This point need not to be discussed any further as the order terminating his service has not been passed on that ground.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has referred to the Haryana Municipal Service Rules, 1982, and urged that since there was no provision made therein to the contrary, the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar continued to exercise control over the employees who had been transferred to the Municipal Committee, Palwal. This contention cannot be accepted. The question of jurisdiction is to be decided in accordance with law prevalent. If the rules do not permit the Administrator of one Municipal Committee to terminate the service of an employee of the other Municipal Committee, obviously Respondent No. 2 acted without jurisdiction in passing the order of termination, Annexure P-4, in the present case. The order being without jurisdiction, is quashed. With the result the order Annexure P-5 vide which the petitioner was relieved also stands quashed. The petitioner will get costs which are quantified at Rs. 1,000/-.