IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1976 of 1988 Date of Decision: September 23, 2011 Sansari Lal Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present:- Mr.H.S.Gill, Senior Advocate with Mr.Manuj Nagrath, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Ranvir S.Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab --- Mohinder Pal, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.02.1988, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide which the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 11.09.1986 passed by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Jalandhar was upheld. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration, wherein he has challenged the validity of order dated 12.06.1979, passed by Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh whereby his services were terminated. The case of the plaintiff in nutshell is that, he joined the Punjab Police Department as a clerk on 02.01.1973. He was assigned the job of maintaining library books and stationary articles. It is alleged that the Head clerk and other officials had been taking away library books and articles of stationary without making any entry in the register which resulted in shortage of stock of books and articles of 1 RSA No.1976 of 1988 stationary. On account of the shortage, case against the plaintiff was got registered and during trial he was found innocent and was acquitted. In the meanwhile, defendant no.2 passed order dated 12.06.1979, discharging him from the service without assigning any reason. The plaintiff made a representation against the said order of discharge and the same was rejected by defendant no.2 on 02.02.1983. The defendants took the plea that on the basis of adverse entries of the plaintiff with regard to his work and conduct in the service book, he was discharged from service strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment. Order passed by the department was quite legal. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the orders dated 12.06.1979 and 02.02.83 are illegal null and void? OPP 2. Whether the present suit is barred by time? OPD 3. Whether the present suit is barred by principles of resjudicata? OPD 4. Relief. The parties led evidence in support of their case. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the First Appellate Court was also dismissed. Against the dismissal of the verdict rendered by First Appellate Court, the plaintiff has come in the present regular second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case very carefully. 2 RSA No.1976 of 1988 For the disposal of this appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated:- i) Whether the appellant who had put in more than six years of service could be treated as an ad hoc employee when even in the appointment order it is mentioned that appointment was on temporary basis? ii) When services of all temporary and ad-hoc employee who had put in more than two years service, were ordered to be regularized, whether under the circumstances the appellant could be discharged from service without holding a regular enquiry? iii) When the impugned order of discharge was passed on account of criminal case pending against the appellant, whether such order can be treated as order simpliciter particularly when he was also acquitted by the criminal Court? iv) Whether there is misreading of evidence by the learned Courts below? Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the conclusions were manifestly erroneous arrived at without complete and comprehensive appreciation of relevant aspects of the case in their proper prospective and consequently are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, leaned State counsel also strenuously contended that there is overwhelming material which according to him, rightly found favour of acceptance with the Trial Court and First Appellate Court and 3 RSA No.1976 of 1988 therefore, no interference is called for in the findings of both the courts below. After having given my thoughtful consideration to submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the judgments of both the courts below, I am fully convinced that there is no ground for interference by this court. It is to be seen that the impugned order vide which the services of the plaintiff was discharged from service is an order of termination simplicitor as per terms and conditions contained in his appointment letter Ex D5 without attaching any stigma to him or that the order in question is stated to have been passed by way of punishment. As per appointment letter (Ex.D5), the plaintiff was appointed on temporary basis and it was clearly mentioned in the letter that the services of the plaintiff can be terminated at any time without any notice. In the present case no misconduct of the plaintiff was made the basis for termination of his services and he was discharged only on account of adverse entries existing in his service record. The proceedings of the departmental selection committee are very relevant. As per Ex.D6 while discussing the case of the plaintiff at serial no.8 the committee dealt with the adverse entries in the service record of the appellant- plaintiff and considered the same to be very “ poor “. In the light of these entries the departmental selection committee recommended the termination of the services of the plaintiff and in compliance of the same defendant no.2-department dispensed with the services of the plaintiff. It was the first and foremost condition in the appointment letter of the plaintiff that the services of the plaintiff can be terminated at any time without any prior notice. Further, the adverse remarks recorded in Annual Confidential Reports were duly conveyed to the plaintiff. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff that even 4 RSA No.1976 of 1988 ad-hoc employee is entitled to protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India when his services were terminated by way of punishment but said contention of the learned counsel is not acceptable as the services of the plaintiff were terminated only on the recommendation of departmental selection committee. Plaintiff being purely ad-hoc employee, no charge sheet and regular enquiry was required. Services of the plaintiff were never regularised. If the plaintiff had put in more than six years of service as ad-hoc employee he cannot claim regularisation as a matter of right. Article 311 of the Constitution thus cannot come into picture in this case and no protection can be granted to the plaintiff. The findings arrived at by the both the courts below are concurrent findings of fact and cannot be said to be improper perverse or otherwise illegal. Nothing has been pointed out at the bar to show if any thing has been left out of consideration. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law referred to above are decided against the plaintiff. Thus, taking an over all view of the facts and circumstances, as discussed above, I find no scope to interfere with any of the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court. Resultantly, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE September 23, 2011 p.singh 5