Civil Writ Petition No. 17445 of 1991 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 17445 of 1991 Date of decision: 11.9.2009 Harnam Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: None for the petitioner Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana ***** S.D.ANAND, J. 1. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner had been appointed to the post of a Fire man (in the department of Fire Brigade Municipality, Kaithal) “purely on temporary basis.” The order of appointment (Annexure P-1) was categorical to the effect that the appointment was temporary in character and “on adhoc basis” and that it could be terminated “without assigning any notice” at any time. Thereafter, the petitioner came to be transferred under the orders of the Director, Local Bodies, Haryana, from Municipal Committee, Kaithal to Municipal Committee, Ambala Sadar, vide order dated 28.6.1991. His services were terminated by respondent no.3, vide order dated 30.10.1991 (Annexure P- 2). 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned termination order was invalid as it had been passed by respondent no.3 who was not his appointing authority It is also the grievance that the Civil Writ Petition No. 17445 of 1991 -2- **** impugned order suffers from the vice of non-observance of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing had been afforded before the impugned order came about. 3. The contesting respondents no.2 to 4 contested the petition by averring that it was a pure and simple case of innocuous termination during the period of probation and the petitioner, who was also not eligible for the impugned appointment, cannot be heard to grudge the impugned termination, particularly when the appointing authority had not been impleaded as a party. 4. That the petitioner was appointed on 2.5.1991 and that his services were terminated by means of non-stigmatic order dated 30.10.1991 is evident from a conjunctive perusal of Annexures P-1 and P- 2. As the impugned termination came about during the period of probation and also because impugned order is innocuous in character and does not, in any manner, stigmatize the petitioner, it cannot be faulted on any valid score. An employee on probation can call into question the validity of termination even during the period of probation but only if the order stigmatizes the employee. The moment it transpires that the termination came about on the basis of quality of functioning, the principles of natural justice and fair play would come into play. In that eventuality, the appointing authority would be ordained to grant an opportunity of hearing to the employee. The principles of natural justice shall have to be observed in toto before the appointing authority makes up its mind in the context. In case the impugned order is non-stigmatic in character and it comes about during the period of probation, the employee cannot be heard to grudge it. 5. The present is a case in which it is not even an averment by the petitioner that the impugned order stigmatizes him. It is apparent from Civil Writ Petition No. 17445 of 1991 -3- **** a perusal of Annexure P-1 that the petitioner had been appointed in the Department of Fire Brigade Municipality, Kaithal. Though there is some confusion on the point about circumstances under which the petitioner came to be transferred from Municipal Committee, Kaithal to Municipal Committee, Ambala Sadar, it is apparent that his services did come to be transferred to the latter municipality. In that view of things, the latter municipality would be competent to pass an order of impugned category during the period the petitioner was on probation. 6. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. September 11, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge Civil Writ Petition No. 17445 of 1991 -4- ****