CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1411 OF 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: May 15, 2008 Parties Name Rakesh Kumar ..PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. C. PURI PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana; JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) Order. Petitioner was taken in service as a Clerk on May 6, 2003. He was put on probation for a period of two years. It was specifically mentioned in his appointment letter that on satisfactory completion of probation period, he would be confirmed in service. It is not in dispute that in response to the letter, referred to above, petitioner joined the service on May 21, 2003. He was terminated on June 1, 2005. Hence this writ petition. When notice of motion was issued, following contention of counsel for the petitioner was noticed by this Court on January 29, 2007: “Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner joined as a Clerk in the office of respondent No. 2, on probation for a CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1411 OF 2007 -2- period of two years and his services have been terminated vide order dated June 01, 2005, passed by the Commandant General, Home Guards & Director, Civil Defence, Haryana. The learned counsel further submits that as the period of probation was already over, therefore, the petitioner was a regular employee of the department and his services could have been terminated only after conducting a regular inquiry which has not been done.” Upon notice, reply has been filed, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner, during his probation period, acted in a very indisciplined manner. With regard to his acts of commission and omission, it was averred as under: “The petitioner was appointed as Clerk vide appointment letter dated 6-5-2003 on compassionate grounds and he joined his service on 21-5-2003. He was to remain on probation for two years as per terms and conditions of appointment and service rules. He remained absent from his duty from 8-7-93 to 14-7-03 without any leave or intimation to the office but taking a lenient view his leave was sanctioned on his request with a warning that he should not leave the office without getting his leave sanctioned in future. The petitioner again remained absent from 22-7-03 to 10-8-03 and he was directed to report for duty by telegram on 6-8-03 even then he joined on 11-8-03. The petitioner again remained absent from 22-8-03 to 27-8-03 but again taking a lenient view his earned leave for 3 days and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1411 OF 2007 -3- without pay leave for 21 days was sanctioned and he was again warned that he should not leave the office without getting the leave sanctioned in future, otherwise, strict disciplinary action shall be taken against him. The petitioner came to the office on his duty after consuming alcohol on 28-10-03. He was got medically examined and was found under the influence of liquor even at 1 PM therefore, he was suspended on 31-10-03. The petitioner was charge-sheeted under rule 7 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1987 vide memo dated 23-1-04 for the above charges and reply was given by him on 10-3-04. The petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 16-2-04 without prejudice to the enquiry pending against him. As the reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory, enquiry officer was appointed on 4- 5-2004. The petitioner joined the enquiry only for once on 13- 5-04 even after repeated requests by the enquiry officer. Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 18-3-2005 and the charges of repeated absence from duty, indiscipline and attending the office in the influence of liquor were proved against the petitioner. After reinstatement the petitioner was posted in the office of Home Guards Kurukshetra on temporary duty vide order dated 1-3-04. He remained absent from duty therefrom 7-6-04 to 16- 6-04 and again absented himself from 5-7-04 . After considering his above absence his temporary duty at Kurukshetra was cancelled vide order dated 22-7-04. The CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1411 OF 2007 -4- petitioner remained absent till 24-7-2004 without any leave. The District Commandant relieved him to report at State Head Quarter Chandigarh on 6-8-2004 but the petitioner did not join his duty at Chandigarh nor joined the enquiry pending against him. He informed the office by telegram that his leave may be extended till he join the duty. The petitioner was informed by letter and telegram on 8-9-2004 that he may join his duty immediately otherwise disciplinary action shall be initiated against him. The petitioner joined his duty on 14-9-2004. The petitioner again absented himself from duty from 8-11-2004 to 11-11-2004 without any intimation and requested for leave and station leave for 4 days vide his application dated 16-11-2004 and after that remained absent till 31-12-2004. He joined his duty on 3-1-2005. After that the petitioner requested for casual leave for 4-2-2005 and station leave from 3-2-05 to 6-2-05 and remained absent till 1-6-05 when the order of his removal from service were passed. In this period, he sent two applications for leave and in his first application he requested without pay leave from 7-2-2005 to 28-2-2005 and in the second application he requested without pay leave from 1-3-05 to 26-3-05 on the medical ground. The petitioner was directed to send medical certificate regarding his sickness vide letter dated 18-3-05 but he never sent the same nor joined his duty. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 27-4-05 for proposed punishment of dismissal from service and he was given 15 days to file his reply if any. The notice was received by the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1411 OF 2007 -5- petitioner on 30-4-05 but no reply was filed by the petitioner till 1-6-05. His probation period was also examined after its completion on 20-5-05 and it was found that he is an unnecessary burden on the Government it will not be in public interest to retain him in Government service. Therefore, he was removed from service as his record during probation period was not found satisfactory vide order dated 1-6-2005.” It has further been stated that as his probation period was not satisfactory, his service was terminated. Counsel for the parties heard. We are of the view that the order passed is perfectly justified. In appointment letter of the petitioner, it was not mentioned that on completion of two years from the date of his joining, he would automatically be confirmed in service. Counsel for the petitioner has also failed to show any rule, which envisages, as referred to above. Admittedly, the petitioner joined on May 21, 2003. He completed two years of service on May 20, 2005. Order of termination was passed on June 1, 2005. It appears that the matter was being processed and few days might have been consumed in the office, before order of termination was passed. Merely because period of probation was not extended, it does not mean that the petitioner was confirmed on completion of two years' service. This view finds support from a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rajiv Katyal v. State of Haryana and another, C.W.P. No. 29 of 2008, rendered on March 19, 2008, wherein under similar circumstances, it was observed thus: “Vide Annexures R-2 and R-3, adverse remarks in respect of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1411 OF 2007 -6- ACRs for the years 2006-06 and 2006-07 have been conveyed to the petitioner. It has been mentioned in the ACR, Annexure R-3, that the petitioner is in the habit of leaving the office without permission and making false complaints against his superiors. He is disobedient and misbehaves with his immediate superiors and other officers including visitors. Vide Annexure R-6, dated 4.4.2007, the probation period of the petitioner was extended for one year. The petitioner has completed the service of three years on 19.12.2007. The impugned order has been passed on 1 / 2.1.2008 i.e. within few days of completion of three years of service. The period of these few days cannot be said to be excessive as the authorities have to make up the mind for keeping the petitioner in service or not. Vide Annexures R-II and R-29, explanations have been sought from the petitioner for his various lapses during his tenure of service with respondent. The petitioner was appointed as a Superintendent in the Law and Legislative Department where he is supposed to deal with Court cases and serious lapses are there on the part of petitioner.” It has been brought to our notice that to confirm an employee, like the petitioner, a specific order has to be passed. Nothing has been shown to the contrary. In view of facts, mentioned above, this writ petition fails and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1411 OF 2007 -7- the same is dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( K. C. Puri ) May 15, 2008. Judge DKC