IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.4023 of 2008(OA(D) No.144/97 Date of decision: 26.6.2009 Ramesh Chand …….Petitioner. Vs. H.P.S.F.C. and another ....….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Advocate Kuldip Singh, Judge(Oral) The Petitioner had filed Original Application being OA(D) No.144 of 1997 before Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which was abolished vide notification dated 8th July, 2008. Thereafter, the Original Application was transferred to this Court in view of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (transfer of decided and pending cases and applications) Act, 2008 and was registered as CWP(T) No.4023 of 2008. 2. The petitioner in the petition has prayed for quashing of Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2 both dated 20.5.1996. It has been pleaded in the petition that petitioner had been serving with the respondents as timber watcher since 1.10.1984. On 31.8.1988, the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 petitioner was convicted by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dharamshala under section 325 IPC. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this court. The petitioner was put behind the bars on 18.1.1994 and was released on 28.5.1994. He again started working with the respondents from 1.6.1994. It has been alleged that petitioner received Annexure A-2 in pursuance of Annexure A-1 dated 20.5.1996. The service of the petitioner was terminated due to his conviction. The conviction of the petitioner in domestic dispute has nothing to do with his employment in Government service. The termination of the petitioner is arbitrary and against law. The petitioner had sent a notice dated 4.3.1997 (Annexure A-3). 3. In reply the respondents have submitted that at the time of rejoining of service on 1.6.1994 the petitioner did not disclose that he was ever convicted and sentenced by the Court. It has been pleaded that the service of the petitioner was rightly terminated. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing of the case has submitted that petitioner is not in service and therefore, in the petition prayers has been made for quashing of Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2 with further direction that petitioner may be allowed to work with the respondents. Thus, it is admitted case of the petitioner that on the date of filing of the petition the petitioner was not working with the respondents. The petitioner has pleaded in the petition that petitioner has received Annexure A-2 from respondents in pursuance of letter dated 20.5.1996 Annexure A-1 and the service of the petitioner was terminated. The perusal of 3 Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-1 indicates that both these letters were not addressed to petitioner, rather these letters are internal communications of the respondents. The petitioner has not placed on record the termination letter vide which he was dis-engaged by the respondents. It is not the case of the petitioner that his services were dis-engaged orally by competent authority. In absence of dis- engagement letter of the petitioner, no effective relief can be given to him even by quashing Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2, more particularly, when it is not the case of the petitioner that his services were dis-engaged orally by competent authority. In addition to this, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing that petitioner had been working as a daily wager. It is the case of the respondents that petitioner never disclosed that he was convicted by the court and he suffered imprisonment. The petitioner has not pointed out under what provision he has right of re-engagement as timber watcher after his conviction by the court. No violation of any statutory rule has been pleaded for not continuing the petitioner in the service. There is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. June 26, 2009 (sks)