HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 2683/2008 (OA No.1779/1995) Date of Decision: June 2, 2009 Vinod Kumar ……. Petitioner Versus H. R. T. C. & Anr. . ….. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.10.1981, whereby his services stand terminated as also the memo dated 28.6.1995 (Annexure A-1), whereby the petitioner’s representation against the same stand dismissed. Petitioner was engaged as Conductor with the respondent- Corporation and in terms of orders dated 19.4.1980 (Annexure R-3), he was appointed as Conductor in the pay scale of Rs.400-600 w.e.f. 1.4.1980 and was put on probation for a period of two years. His services, before the expiry of the probation period were dispensed with vide orders dated 27.10.1981 (not on record). There is no dispute that the said order does not assign any reason and is a simplicitor order of termination. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.1098/93 before this Court, which stood dismissed by the Division 2 Bench of this Court vide orders dated 12.4.1990. The observations made by the Court are reproduced as under:- “We have carefully considered the contents of the writ petition and also the reply and also heard the learned counsel. When it is not in dispute that the order of termination of service of the petitioner was passed on 27.10.1981, the petitioner ought to have agitated it at the earliest and we do not find any justification, whatever, for the petitioner approaching this Court on 6.8.1993 praying for issuance of a writ. In other words, the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches and that would disentitle him from claiming relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. In addition having regard to the circumstance that the petitioner was employed under the first respondent- Corporation, by virtue of a notification marked as Annexure R-1, the proper forum for agitating the claim of the petitioner would be H.P. Administrative Tribunal and not this Court. Above all, a consideration of the history sheet of the petitioner establishes, beyond doubt that the petitioner richly deserves the order passed and sought to be impugned in the writ petition. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.” Subsequently, the petitioner filed an Original Application No.693 of 1995, before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which stood disposed of in terms of orders dated 25.4.1995, whereby the said application was directed to be treated as a representation to be decided by the respondent within a period of three months. Vide memo dated 28.6.1995 (Annexure A-1), the said representation stood rejected by the respondent on the ground that not only it was time barred, but also that his over all work and conduct was assessed and found not up to 3 the mark by the appointing authority. Therefore, his services were terminated during the probation period. Without considering the earlier observations made by this Court, in my considered view, record reveals that the petitioner’s termination is neither punitive nor stigmatic. His over all conduct was considered and only after assessing his performance during the probation period, the order of termination was passed. From the history sheet of the petitioner placed on record by the respondent (Annexure R-2), it is evident that the respondent was issued various orders including Censure and stoppage of one increment. The issuance of the said orders is not in dispute and the same in any event has not been assailed by the petitioner in accordance with law. The overall conduct of the petitioner has been made the foundation for initiation of the action which is neither punitive nor stigmatic. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is neither entitled for any issuance of show cause notice nor initiation of disciplinary proceedings before the passing of the termination order. One cannot loose sight of the fact that the petitioner was on probation. Hence, under the aforesaid circumstances the present petition, being devoid of any merit is dismissed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. June 2, 2009 (rana)