IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3548 of 2010. Decided on: 26th July, 2010. Vivek Sharma. ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P and others. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed for the following reliefs: “(i) That the office order dated 9.9.2009 at Annexure P-6 vide which the services of the petitioner have been ordered to be terminated may very kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may very kindly be reinstated in service w.e.f. due date with all consequential benefits. (ii) That the order dated 8.6.2010 at Annexure P-16 passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the representation made by the petitioner at Annexure P- 15 has been rejected, may very kindly be quashed and set aside.” 2. We find from Annexure P-6, order that the termination is on account of the non-cooperation on the part of the petitioner and unsatisfactory performance of his duties. According to the petitioner, no notice had ever been served 2 on this account to the petitioner. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier and this Court permitted him to make a representation and the representation was considered by the second respondent, Director leading to Annexure P-16, order. It is seen that the said order has been passed after affording hearing to the petitioner as well as to the Principal. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has been working to the satisfaction of all concerned since 2004 and only the present Principal alone has taken up the issue as such. Though the Director had given an opportunity to both the Principal and the petitioner, it is found from the available records that there was no occasion when the petitioner was served with a memo in respect of his unsatisfactory performance, prior to the extreme action of his termination. In fact the petitioner submits that there are other vacant places where the petitioner can be accommodated. But the learned Senior Addl. Advocate General submits that since the petitioner had already been terminated, there is no question of accommodating the petitioner in any other School. 3. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we find that the Authorities have not addressed the issue on all relevant aspects. It is seen from the files of the Deputy Director, which is produced as Annexure P-7 that termination is only on account of the motivated conduct on the part of the Principal. If that be so, the termination is certainly unjustified. We may extract the noting in the file which reads as follows: 3 “N/27. The Principal GSSS Dhundla has forwarded some documents through fax which have been received today on 21.10.2009 at 2.30 p.m. The perusal of these documents reveals that services of Shri Vivek Sharma, Para Lecturer (Bio) have been terminated merely on the ground of disobedience of the orders of the Principal. He was asked to teach 7th and 10th Class Science by the Principal but he refused to note the orders. Further he was assigned Sanchayika work by the Principal. The Principal have issued various orders to him on petty issues and insisted to teach 30 period in a week. Whereas as per para teacher policy, the Para Teacher are to be assigned less work as compared to regular teachers. Secondly, before termination no proper formalities have been completed because proper notice has not been served upon the employee concerned. As per record supplied, a formal letter on dated 8.9.2009 has been issued which cannot be said to be a notice and said letter has been written in school order book. It appears that the Principal, GSSS Dhundla was committed to remove Shri Vivek Sharma from service and ultimately he issued order of his termination on 9.9.2009 i.e. next day of notice. In my opinion, entire action of the Principal is illegal as he has not completed all codal formalities before termination, thus, his action is liable to be set aside.” 4. Since admittedly no notice had been served on the petitioner and since apparently no memo had been served on him prior to the initiation of the impugned extreme action of termination, we set aside the termination. There will be a direction to the third respondent to post the petitioner in any of the vacant posts, referred to in Annexure P-17. It is made clear that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner shall not be eligible to any back wages. However, he will be entitled for continuity of service in case the same would serve any purpose in future. The needful, as above, shall be done 4 within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner. 5. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 26th July, 2010 ( Justice Kuldip Singh), (tr) Judge.