In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.1109 of 1988 ..... Date of decision:2.11.2011 State of Punjab through the Collector, Ferozepur .....Appellant v. Thakur Singh .....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 appellant. Mr. Anurag Ravinder Chopra and Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocates for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This is regular second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide which the appeal filed by the State has been dismissed. As per fact of this case, plaintiff-Thakur Singh (respondent herein) joined as a Conductor on ad hoc basis with the Punjab Roadways Depot Muktsar (appellant). Services of the plaintiff-respondent were R.S.A. No.1109 of 1988 [2] terminated vide order dated 6.1.1983 passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar and the appeal against this order was also dismissed by the Divisional Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur and as a result thereof services of the plaintiff were terminated. It is allegation of the plaintiff that the order of termination was not a speaking one and the punishing authority did not assign any reason for the same. The order was passed as a measure of punishment whereas the appellate authority did not at all apply its mind to the facts of this case. A notice under Section 80 CPC was given to the defendant, however, without any result. After notice the suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement admitting that the plaintiff was working as Conductor in Punjab Roadways at Muktsar and also regarding termination of his services. It has been submitted that as the plaintiff had not yet completed his probation period, hence his services were rightly terminated without assigning any reason. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court while taking into account the fact that the termination being arbitrary and the juniors of the plaintiff were retained in service decreed the suit and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved from the concurrent findings of both the Courts, the State has come in appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The appointment of the respondent-Thakur Singh as Conductor on temporary basis with the appellants is not disputed. It has also not been disputed that his services have been terminated without assigning any reason. It is case of the respondent that while terminating his services his juniors have been retained in service. It is further his case that his services R.S.A. No.1109 of 1988 [3] have been terminated on account of allegation of embezzlement of Government amount. In order to prove this fact he has produced the complaint (Ex.P.1) made against him by the Inspectorate staff on 10.12.1982, seniority list of the Conductors of Muktsar Depot (Ex.P.5), his service book (Ex.P.6), and original order of termination. The complaint made against the respondent shows that the bus in which he was Conductor was checked on 10.12.1982 and it was found that he has not issued tickets to 35 passengers and embezzled the Government amount to the tune of Rs.23.20. On this complaint it is also mentioned that explanation of the Conductor be called. However, the file is silent about any explanation having been called. It is further pertinent to mention have that no inquiry whatsoever has been held against the respondent before issuing the termination orders. To my mind in this way termination of the services of the respondent is bad in law because where services of the temporary Government employee are terminated without giving any reason while some other employees junior to him are retained in service it amounts t discrimination. This is particularly so when there are allegation of embezzlement against the employee and the termination has been made without holding any inquiry in an arbitrary manner and not on the ground of unsuitability or other reasons. It has been held in Manager, Govt. Branch Press and another v. D.B. Belliappa, 1979 SLT 233 that if the services of a temporary Government servant are terminated in accordance with the conditions of his service on the ground of unsatisfactory conduct or his unsuitability for the job and/or for his work being unsatisfactory, or for a like reason which marks him off a class apart from other temporary R.S.A. No.1109 of 1988 [4] servants, who have been retained in service, there is no question of the applicability of Article 16 of the Constitution. However, in the present case services have been terminated without assigning any reason and that too when allegations of embezzlement were against the employee and no inquiry has been held. I, therefore, find no force in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. November 2, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*