In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.1089 of 1988 ..... Date of decision: 12.9.2011 Warehousing Corporation Chandigarh through its Managing Director .....Appellant v. R.K. Wadhera .....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: None for the appellant. None for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This regular second appeal is directed by the defendant (appellant herein) against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby the appeal of the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 18.5.1985 passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Amritsar has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff (respondent herein) joined as Accounts Clerk in the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh (appellant herein) on 22.5.1973. The respondent successfully completed the period of probation as he had not received any communication regarding the extension in his probation period and thus he became permanent employee of the appellant-Corporation. When the R.S.A. No.1089 of 1988 [2] respondent was Manager at Mehta, physical verification of the job stock was conducted from 19.8.1978 to 21.8.1978. The Checking Officer complained against the respondent to the Managing Director of the Corporation. The Managing Director of the appellant-Corporation vide order dated 22.8.1978 terminated the services of the respondent without giving him any opportunity of explaining the allegations against him. The termination order was purported to be under Regulation 11 of the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as `the Regulations'). A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff-respondent challenging the order dated 22.8.1978 being illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff. Vide the aforesaid suit, the plaintiff has prayed for declaration that the order be declared as null and void. The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. It was held that neither any inquiry had been conducted nor any procedure had been followed, therefore, the order terminating the services of the plaintiff is illegal and void ab initio. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. The appeal filed by the Warehousing Corporation (appellant) before the first appellate Court was also dismissed. No one has come present on behalf of the appellant-defendant as well as plaintiff-respondent when the case was taken up for hearing. In these circumstances, I have left with no other option but to decide the case on the basis of the documents available on the lower Court record. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff was appointed on R.S.A. No.1089 of 1988 [3] 22.05.1973 and his services were terminated vide order dated 22.08.1978 passed by the Managing Director, Warehousing Corporation, Punjab, Chandigarh. It is evident that when the services of the plaintiff were terminated, he had rendered the services for a period of five years and three months. It is the case of the defendant-appellant that the plaintiff was still a probationer but this fact is factually wrong as the plaintiff had rendered five years and three months of service when his services were terminated. The probation period as provided under Rule 8 of the Regulations is only one year unless it is extended further. There is not an iota of evidence that the probation period was ever extended. Vide Ex.P1, the services of the plaintiff were terminated with immediate effect under Regulation 11. The order itself reveals that the plaintiff was never given any notice prior to termination of his services or he was directed to deposit one month's salary. Under these circumstances, the order of termination was rightly held to be illegal by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below have dealt the factual and legal position governing the case of the plaintiff-respondent in great detail. Nothing infirm in the conclusion arrived at by both the Courts below can be said to be improper. No substantial question of law is made out to interfere in the judgments rendered by the Courts below. Resultantly, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. September 12, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp/P.singh*