Madan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Appellant has filed an appeal challenging the order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, writ Petition filed by the appellant

was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the services of the appellant have been terminated by the respondents without following due

process of law. Appellant was not given any opportunity of hearing. Similarly situated employees have been allowed to continue in service.

In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu Lal vs. State of Haryana And Ors.

1991 AIR 1310 wherein, it was held as under:-

This finding of the High Court is totally baseless in as much as the counsel for the said respondent could not produce any order or documentary

evidence to show that the respondents considered the case of the appellant for the purpose of regularization in accordance with the Notification dated

1st January, 1980. As such the finding of the High Court is wholly bad and illegal. The other finding of the High Court that the acquittal of the

appellant by the criminal court was of no consequence as his services were terminated before the order of acquittal was made because the appellant

was no more in service is also against the well settled legal position. It has also to be borne in mind that under the Notification dated 1st January, 1980

issued by the Government, the appellant having fulfilled the condition of two years of service is entitled to be considered by the Government for

regularization of his service in accordance with the said executive instructions issued by the Government. As we have said herein before that there is

nothing on record to show that the Government has ever considered the case of the appellant for regularization of his service in the light of the

instructions contained in the said Notification dated 1st January, 1980, the impugned order of termination of service made by the Government is illegal

and arbitrary and so it is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Moreover, from the sequences of facts of his case the inference is irresistible that the impugned order of termination of the service of the appellant is

of penal nature having civil consequence. It is well settled by several decisions of this Court that though the order is innocuous on the face of it still

then the Court that though the order is innocuous on the face of it still then the Court if necessary, for the ends of fair play and justice can lift the veil

and find out the real nature of the order and if it is found that the impugned order is penal in nature even though it is couched with the order of

termination in accordance with the terms and conditions of the order of appointment, the order will be set aside. Reference may be made in this

connection to the decision of this Court in Smt. Rajinder Kaur v. State of Punjab And Another, [1989] 4 SCC 181 in which one of us is a party. It has

been held that:-

The impugned order of discharge though stated to be made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, was

really made on the basis of the misconduct as found on inquiry into the allegation behind her back. Though couched in innocuous terms, the order was

merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal from service on the ground of misconduct. This order had been made without serving the appellant any

charge-sheet, without asking for any explanation from her and without giving any opportunity to show cause against the purported order of dismissal

from service and without giving any opportunity to show cause against the purported order of dismissal from service and without giving any

opportunity to cross-examine the witness examined. The order was thus, made in total contravention of the provisions of Article 311(2) and was

therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside.

Appellant was admittedly working with the respondents on contract basis as Junior Technical Assistant with effect from 25.03.2008.

Services of the appellant were terminated vide order dated 14.07.2009 on account of the registration of a criminal case against him. However, after

due inquiry, it transpired that the appellant was not liable to be proceeded in the criminal case. However, appellant was found guilty of financial

irregularities in departmental proceedings.

It has been noticed by the learned Single Judge that various notices had been issued to the appellant and he was afforded opportunity of personal

hearing on 04.02.2015. In departmental proceedings, it transpired that the appellant as well as some other employees had committed financial

irregularities. So far as the appellant is concerned, recovery of Rs.29,000/- had been ordered to be made from him.

In this factual background, learned Single Judge rightly held that the appellant was not entitled for reinstatement in service. The reasons given by the

learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ Petition filed by the appellant call for no interference.

We have gone through the judgment relied by learned counsel for the appellant but the same fails to advance the case of the appellant as it is based on

different facts.

Dismissed.