R.S.A. No.2739 of 1987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... R.S.A. No.2739 of 1987 Date of Decision: August 16, 2011 Baldev Singh ... Appellant VERSUS The State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Mr.V.K.Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Ranvir S.Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below vide which suit of the plaintiff-appellant challenging his termination order was dismissed vide order dated 13.08.1986 and the appeal against this order is also dismissed by the Court of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 14.05.1987. The appellant has been working as a Conductor in the Punjab Roadways, Amritsar-II on temporary basis and joined service in November, 1981. The inspector of the Department made a complaint against him and his services were terminated vide order dated 22.04.1982. The appellant challenged the order of the General R.S.A. No.2739 of 1987 2 Manager, Punjab Roadways, Amritsar-II by way of declaratory suit on the ground that the order was illegal, malafide and without jurisdiction and General Manager while passing the order had not applied his mind. The dedendant-respondent contested the suit by terming the impugned order as quite legal, valid and had been passed in accordance with the terms of the employment. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the impugned order dated 22.04.1982 terminating services of the plaintiff is arbitrary, malafide, illegal etc. as and for reasons alleged in the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the matter in suit? OPD. 3. Relief.” The trial Court after appreciating the evidence brought on record by the parties, decided issue No.2 in favour of the appellant and issue No.1 against him and dismissed the suit. Dis-satisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar which was also dismissed. Aggrieved from this decision, he has approached this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that service of the appellant had been terminated by way of punishment and he was entitled to the protection under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. It has been submitted that even if the appellant was a temporary employee, his service cannot be terminated without holding a regular departmental inquiry as termination has amounted to stigma on his service. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has argued with vehemence that within six months of the employment the R.S.A. No.2739 of 1987 3 appellant was found absent from duty without any reason and there was serious allegation of embezzlement against him. As the order of termination is not stigmatic, the appeal filed by the appellant has been rightly dismissed by the Court below. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of both the learned counsel for the parties. This is an admitted fact that the appellant had joined service in November, 1981 and his service was terminated vide order dated 22.04.1982 while he has yet not completed the probation period. There is no dispute to the fact that the service of the appellant could be terminated at any time without issuing any notice or assigning any reason. The termination order has been conveyed to the appellant which reads as under: “The services of Baldev Singh Conductor No.106 are no longer required” The order has been passed by the General Manager Punjab Roadways, Amritsar, who was competent to pass this order. It has been laid down in the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Vijay Shanker Tripathi Vs. State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow and others 2006(2) S.C.T. 556 that in a case where employer makes up his mind to get rid of his employee merely on allegations without trying to find out the truth of the same that can merely be a motive for removal, and as the termination is not based on foundation, it cannot be held to be punitive in nature. The law is clear on the point that where the employer assessed the suitability of any temporary employee/probationer and his services are terminated without any stigma, still the order will be a valid and legal order. Here is a case where the appellant has not even completed the period of six months R.S.A. No.2739 of 1987 4 and he was involved in embezzlement and absent from duty, the order of the appellate authority clearly empowers the respondent to terminate the service without assigning any reason. The order of termination is neither stigmatic nor punitive. The protection given to any employee under Section 311 (2) of the Constitution of the India can be invoked in a case where the order of termination casts any stigmatic or punitive. Nothing in this support has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. Otherwise also, service of the appellant was less than six months and the appellant has not completed 240 days. It is also to be noted that service of the appellant has been terminated in the year 1982 and now we are in 2011. I do not find any fault in the impugned judgment passed by Court below. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is dismissed. August 16, 2011 ( MOHINDER PAL ) jt JUDGE