In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.480 of 1988 ..... Date of decision:31.10.2011 The State of Punjab and another .....Appellants v. Madan Lal .....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This is defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.1987 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhatinda whereby appeal of the appellant-plaintiff was allowed and suit of the plaintiff- appellant (Madan Lal) dismissed by the trial Court was decreed. The respondent-plaintiff was appointed as Cleaner in the office of Civil Surgeon, Bathinda (appellant No.2) on 11.4.1978 for a period of six months which was extended from time to time till his services were R.S.A. No.480 of 1988 [2] terminated on 30.9.1983. The plaintiff pleaded that according to circular dated 26.10.1982 issued by the Government of Punjab he became regular employee and his services could not be terminated without adopting proper procedure. Aggrieved from this order of termination, plaintiff approached the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Bathinda by way of suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 29.9.1983 passed by Civil Surgeon, Bathinda (defendant No.2) by virtue of which services of the plaintiff have been terminated was illegal and void. On notice, the defendants contested the suit on the grounds that the suit was premature as the plaintiff did not file any appeal against the impugned order. It was submitted that the plaintiff was appointed on ad hoc basis and as per appointment order, his services could be terminated at any time without any notice and the circular dated 26.10.1982 issued by the Government of Punjab was not applicable to him. His services were terminatd as his work was unsatisfactory. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed issues and the main issue that whether the order dated 29.9.1982 by which the services of the plaintiff were terminated was illegal, void and without jurisdiction was decided against the plaintiff. Hence, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, however, in appeal the findings of the trial Court were reversed as the services of the plaintiff were terminated without following proper procedure as laid down in Article 311 of the Constitution of India as his juniors were retained in service. The services of an ad hoc employee by way of punishment cannot be terminated in such a manner. Aggrieved from this order of the appellate Court, the appellant R.S.A. No.480 of 1988 [3] State has come in appeal. I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent. Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that as the respondent was appointed on ad hoc basis, as per his appointment order his services could be terminated at any time without any notice and his services were terminated since these were no longer required hence the termination order does not amount to a stigma as it was not by way of punishment. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in the absence of any charge-sheet or inquiry and without following proper procedure, the termination of services of the respondent is stigmatic and the impugned order has been rightly held to be illegal and void and has finally prayed for dismissal of the appeal. In the impugned order (Ex.P.3), it has been written that the services of the respondent were no longer required without assigning any reason. In the written statement filed before the trial Court, the appellants have admitted that the services of the respondent were terminated as his work was unsatisfactory and as he was an ad hoc employee, so there was no need to serve him charge-sheet or any notice was required to be served upon him. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by this Court that while retaining persons who were junior to the respondent was discriminatory and arbitrary being in contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, the services of an ad hoc employee by way of punishment cannot be terminated without following proper procedure as laid down in Article 311 of the Constitution if his juniors are retained in R.S.A. No.480 of 1988 [4] service. The services of the respondent were terminated as he has made complaint against the Civil Surgeon, Bathinda (appellant No.2) to the District Public Grievance Officer, so it seems to be vindictive in nature. Otherwise also, the respondent has worked for a period of more than five years continuously. In Jarnail Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1986 SC 1626, the Supreme Court held as under:- “In the instant case as we have stated already hereinbefore that though the impugned order was made under the camouflage or cloak of an order of termination simpliciter according to the terms of the employment, yet considering the attendant circumstances which are the basis of the said order of termination, there is no iota of doubt in inferring that the order of termination had been made by way of punishment on the ground of mis-conduct and adverse entry in service record without affording any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners whose services are terminated and without complying with the mandatory procedure laid down in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.” A perusal of the aforesaid decision shows that the order of termination passed by appellant No.2 is not only arbitrary but also discriminatory in as much as the juniors in rank were retained by appellant No.2 while terminating the services of the respondent on the ground that his services were no longer required. Certainly, the appointing authority can terminate the ad hoc or temporary service of an employee in terms of the R.S.A. No.480 of 1988 [5] order of employment on the ground that the service of the ad hoc/temporary employee was unsatisfactory or that he was not suitable for the job assigned or for any such similar reasons. The service of an ad hoc employee can be terminated on the ground that his service is no longer required only when he has been positioned as junior most in the ad hoc cadre. When other junior ad hoc employees are retained in service, senior in rank cannot be shown the door on the ground that his service is no longer required. Any such order passed by the authority would definitely be discriminatory. As an ad hoc employee the respondent remained in service till 30.9.1983 and served for more than five years, his services cannot be dispensed with by saying that he is an ad hoc employee and there is no need to serve him charge-sheet or conduct an inquiry and no opportunity is required to be given to him as per his appointment letter. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the appellate Court, which may call for any interference. Resultantly, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. October 31, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*