IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 10219 of 2008. Decided on 20.12.2010. _____________________________________________________ Prem Prakash Bhardwaj. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No. 1. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent No. 2. : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner was appointed as Takniki Sahayak on the basis of notification dated 21st October, 2000. He submitted his joining on 14th September, 2001. It is evident from notification dated 21st October, 2001 that the services of the persons appointed as Takniki Sahayak could be terminated, if the same were found un-satisfactory. The appointment of Takniki Sahayak is initially to be made for a period of one year on contractual basis, however, the contract could be extended by one year at a time if the Panchayats have adequate resources to pay the honorarium and the performance of the Takniki Sahayak is satisfactory. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - 2. In the instant case, the services of the petitioner were terminated on the basis of resolution Annexure A/4, dated 14.01.2004. The services of the petitioner have been terminated on the basis of registration of F.I.R. against him, under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code w.e.f. 07.01.2004. 3. Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the services of the petitioner could not be terminated without issuing him any show-cause notice. There is no merit in this contention. The appointment of the petitioner was initially for a period of one year, which could only be extended on year to year basis, if his services were found satisfactory. In this case, the petitioner had been involved in two cases of theft. The F.I.Rs. have been registered against the petitioner under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code . In one case, the charge had been framed against him by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kandaghat, District Solan on 24.06.2003. The incident pertains to 03.04.2000. In other case, the F.I.R. was registered under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, dated 07.09.2003, wherein the name of the petitioner also finds mention. Consequently, the services of the petitioner were not found satisfactory and he has been rightly terminated. 4. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 20, 2010. (bhupender) - 3 - - 4 - `