IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 571 of 2010 Date of Decision: 30.11.2010 Suber Singh Prehar …Petitioner. Versus. Union of India and othters. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondents.: Mr. Ashok Kumar Thakur, Central Govt. No. 1 to 3 Counsel Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the grant of the following amongst other reliefs: i) That a writ of certiorari may very kindly be issued and impugned act on the part of the respondents contained in annexure P-3 (dt. 18.11.2009) and P-4 (dt.16.12.2009) may very kindly be quashed and set- aside. ii) That a writ of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby direction may be given to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the said post before the termination of the services, in the interest of law and justice. 2 2. The petitioner on his retirement from the army was re-employed as a Laboratory Assistant in the ECHS polyclinic at Yol Cant. His main grievance is that his contract of service has not been renewed and a contract employee cannot be replaced by another contract employee. 3. The respondents in their reply have stated that they had not renewed the contract of the petitioner because they found that his services were not up to the mark and that on various occasions he had been given warnings to improve his conduct but despite that he did not do so and therefore it was decided not to renew his contract of employment. 4. Two documents are relied upon by the respondents. Vide notice dated 18th June, 2009 Lt. Col. Y.S.Rana informed the present petitioner that it had been reported to him that on 10th June, 2009 at about 8.30 p.m the petitioner had entered the premises of the polyclinic and consumed liquor. It was also alleged that he had compelled sepoy Anand Kumar through sepoy Girbir Singh to open the gate. He was told that he 3 had acted in an unbecoming manner and he was asked to give his explanation. There is another letter dated 14th October, 2009 on record, in which it is alleged that the petitioner has a tendency to disobey the orders of the Commending Officer; that he denied to accept the blood sample at about 1100 hrs.; that the petitioner was not receiving the calls of the Commanding Officer after duty hours and that he shirked work; that one Lt.Col. B.S.Dhiman had reported on 7 October, 2009 when second blood sample was to be taken that the petitioner was found gossiping with the physiotherapist in her room. The petitioner was specifically informed that he had been warned many times earlier and he was directed to give his explanation by 15th October, 2009. 5. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner but with this rejoinder no replies to notices have been filed. However, explanation now being given is that as far as the first notice is concerned similar notice was issued to two other employees against whom no action has been taken and with 4 regard to the second notice there are some standing instructions that after 11 O’clock no blood samples are to be taken. 6. These explanations should have been given by the petitioner to his employer when he was asked to give his explanations. Explanations given in the Court are just after thoughts. These are serious allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner being a contract employee and despite being given warnings did not improve himself. There is no doubt in my mind that the employer had no other option but not to renew his contract. This is not a case where the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with but in view of the work and conduct of the petitioner he has not been found as suitable for renewal of the contract employment. I see no error in the impugned order. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. No costs. 30th November, 2010. (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge.