IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL, NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 550 (S/B) of 2003 Old No. 7829 of 1996 State of U.P. (now State of Uttaranchal) and others ……………… Petitioners Versus Sri Harish Chandra S/o Late Sri Mool Chand, R/o Village Kumartha, P.O. Mahanchatti Mulla, Udaipur, Distt. Pauri Garhwal and another …………………… Respondents. ………… Coram: Hon’ble P.C. Verma, A.C.J. Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Date: 06.04.2004 (Per Hon’ble P.C. Verma, A.C.J.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 30.05.1996 passed by the respondent no.2 in Claim Petition No. 89/F/II/1993- Harish Chandra Versus State of U.P. and others. In the claim petition before the State Public Service Commission, U.P., the claimant (respondent no. 1) Harish Chandra had prayed for quashing of the order dated 08.03.1998, by which services of Harish Chandra were terminated. He was employed on the post of Forest Guard on the basis of his being seasonal employee of the Department. The minimum qualification prescribed for the Post of Forest Guard was High School and its equivalent examination. The opposite party no. 1 submitted a certified of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (Prathma) and appeared in the selection submitting that the will produce proof to that effect that it is equivalent to High School. On the basis of selection he joined his services on 11.09.1989, but failed to produce the required certificate and certificate to the effect that he had been seasonal employee of the department from 01.076.1989 to 16.08.1989 was found to be false and wrong. Therefore, services of the petitioner were terminated in terms of U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. In lieu of one month’s notice, he was offered one month’s salary. 2 The U.P. State Public Service Tribunal held that after full fledged enquiry, the claimant (respondent no.1) was not liable to be terminated under U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. The impugned termination order was punitive in nature as the Appointing Authority was motivated to terminate the services of the petitioner (respondent no. 1) by the result of said enquiry in which he was indicated and held guilty. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order of termination was termination simplicitor and not punitive in nature. The termination order was passed on overall assessment of work and conduct of Harish Chandra (respondent no. 1). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that the Tribunal has rightly held that the order was punitive in nature and could not have been passed without holding a department inquiry. The order was not termination simpliciter. He supported the judgment passed by the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal. After perusal of the record we find that in para no.13 of the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal, the department has categorically stated that as per rules applicable in the Forest Department 65% vacancies were to be filled from casual labourers. In the year 1989, the claimant (respondent no.1) was allowed to appear in the selection of Forest Guard as departmental candidate on the basis of his declaration that he served in the department as seasonal employee on the basis of his certificate of his past engagement as seasonal employee, but lateron on the complaint, an enquiry was instituted and it was found that the certificate was found to be forged. Thus, his integrity was found doubtful and his misrepresentation was proved. Accordingly, his services were terminated. The order of termination dated 8.3.1990 was passed to the effect that the services of respondent no.1 were no longer required by the department and he was offered one month’s salary in lieu of one month’s notice. The order was passed under the rules known as U.P. Temporary Government 3 Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. From the perusal of the statement made in para 13 of the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal, it is established that the services of the petitioner were terminated on account of misconduct that he obtained appointment by mis-representation that he was a casual labourer by filing a forged document. Therefore, the order of termination became stigmatic and acquired a character of punishment. The Tribunal has rightly held that the order of termination was punitive. This, the order of Tribunal is liable to be affirmed. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, A.C.J.) (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) Ak