IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.6488 of 1988 Date of decision: 3.8.2010 Mahavir Prashad. -----Petitioner. Vs. The Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL Present:- Mr. Sanjeev, Advocate for the petitioner. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order, Annexure P-6, dated 4.1.1988, whereby services of the petitioner on adhoc basis were terminated. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as daily wager in the year 1982, as Saleman. On 12.8.1987, on verification, stocks were found to be less, which led to order of termination of services without complying with principles of natural justice. The order was, thus, punitive. Person junior to the petitioner continued to serve. 3. In the reply filed on behalf of the Corporation, stand taken is that the petitioner being an adhoc employee, his services were terminated on account of his unsatisfactory working. The order complied with natural justice as he failed to account for the stocks CWP No.6488 of 2010 during physical verification. As regards other employees, it is pointed out that since the Corporation was suffering financial loss, three of the plants and 29 seed sales counters were closed and 85 employees were declared surplus in February, 1988 and as such, no person senior to the petitioner was in the employment. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. None appears for the respondent. 6. It is not disputed that the petitioner was only an adhoc employee. No doubt order of termination refers to alleged shortage of stocks, for which explanation of the petitioner was called for and considered, the fact remains that during adhoc period of service, for unsatisfactory work, order of termination could be passed without inquiry. Mere fact that explanation of the petitioner was called is not enough to hold that the impugned order is stigmatic, requiring the full- fledged departmental inquiry. 7. Impugned order is as under:- “I inspected the Ballabgarh Sale counter on 12.8.87 and found that actual stock of Bajra HC-4 Seed was 2.40 qtls whereas as per stock register, this quantity should have been 3.06 qtls. Thus, a shortage of 0.66 qtls. of Bajra HC- 4 was found at Ballabgarh Sale counter. Shri Mahavir Prashad, Salesman posted at Ballabgarh sale counter at that time, was asked to show cause, vide this office memo No.23162, dated 12.11.87. In his reply to above said memo dated 12.11.87, Sh.Mahavir Prashad has said that the 0.6 qtls Bajra HC 4 seed was kept at the residence of Shri Hargyan Singh village Harphali for sale. Stocking of HSDC’s seed is not allowed at places 2 CWP No.6488 of 2010 other than the sale outlets for sale purposes. Shri Mahavir Prashad has also admitted that there were no such instructions of Head Office. In case it is presumed that 0.66 qtls Bajra HC 4 was actually kept at the residence of Shri Hargyan Singh by Sh.Mahavir Prashad as informed by him then he should have pointed out the same to me during my visit to sale counter on 12.8.87. But Sh.Mahavir Prashad did not do so and he has even rendered no explanation/reason in his above said reply for not pointing out the above said position to me. Therefore reply of Sh.Mahavir Prashad, seems to be an afterthought and it is not convincing. The services of Sh.Mahavir Prashad, Salesman working on adhoc basis at Narnaul Sale counter are therefore, hereby terminated.” 8. In any case, on admitted facts, shortage of stocks was established from the reply of the petitioner which has not been disputed in the petition. Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted in the present case. Compliance of natural justice has to be seen in over-all fact situation. In the circumstances of the present case, there could be no requirement for holding any further enquiry. Reference may be made to judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. G.M.Indian Oil Corporation Limited, AIR 2005 SC 4217, Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan, (2000) 7 SCC 529, Canara Bank v. V.K.Awasthy, (2005) 6 SCC 321 and Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution v. Educational Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1999 SC 3219. 10. No interference is, thus, called for with the impugned order. 3 CWP No.6488 of 2010 11. The petition is dismissed. August 03, 2010 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) Ashwani/gs JUDGE 4