IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3893 of 2009 Judgment reserved on: 29.8.2011 Date of decision: 31.8.2011. Balbir Singh …Petitioner Versus Chief Executive Officer and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioners : Mr.P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. for respondents 1 to 3. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order Annexure P-4 whereby his services were terminated and the order dated 23.9.2009, Annexure P-9, passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Shimla whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was engaged as Gram Rozgar Sewak. His Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 services were terminated by the Block Development Officer. He challenged the termination by filing an appeal which was rejected. Hence, the present petition. 3. The petitioner joined service as Gram Rozgar Sewak on 18.11.2008. On 4.5.2009 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, relevant portion of which reads as follows: “a)A work of NERGS awareness was organized in sub-Teh. Kupvi, whereby you were called upon to explain the reasons for non-performance of your duties mentioned in section 4 of the notification in letters w.sms-7/2002-RDD- Vol.-III dated April 2008. b)Showing your disrespect, arrogance and indiscipline, you left the place where workshop was being organized. c)The same indisciplinary behaviour was displayed in the staff meeting on 01/05/2009, whereby you tried to undermine the authority by unionizing/instigating the fellow G Rozgar Sawaks. d)Therefore, you are required to explain in writing or in person that why your services should not be terminated, for violating the terms and conditions of appointment (notification, section 6(11), within 14 days.” 3 4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice on 15.5.2009. He did not however appear in person. Though there is general denial in the reply but there is no specific denial to the allegations made in the show cause notice that he was called upon to explain the reasons for non-performance of his duties in the meeting in question. He also did not specifically reply to the allegation that he acted in an arrogant manner and left the place where the workshop was being organized. He also made no specific denial to the allegations made by the Block Development Authority that the petitioner had tried to undermine the authority of the BDO in the meeting dated 1.5.2009. The petitioner in fact states that he had raised certain questions only with a view to improve the functioning of the system. 5. To a specific query put by this Court the only explanation given by Sh.P.P. Chauhan was that the petitioner is highly qualified and 4 may have mis-understood his duties. He prays that even if the petitioner was at fault he should have been warned before taking the extreme step of terminating his services. 6. From the material on record and the order of the Deputy Commissioner, it is apparent that the petitioner time and again has acted in an insubordinate manner and has not given proper replies to his superiors. The work of Gram Rozgar Sewak is contractual in nature and no employee has a right to try and browbeat his employer. Discipline is one of the keys to efficiency in Government service. If there is lack of discipline the public can never expect good service from a Government employee. 7. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. No costs. August 31, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge