IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1349 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.2.2010 Manohar Lal. -----Appellant Vs. The Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh & another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Manohar Lall, Advocate for the appellant. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against termination of his services during the period of probation. 2. The appellant was appointed as Process Server on 26.3.2008, on probation, for two years. On 19.1.2009, his services were terminated by an order of termination simplicitor, against which writ petition was filed. 3. Contention of the appellant was that though order was apparently innocuous, foundation of the order was misconduct, which required inquiry. A complaint had been made by three women employees which led to the order of termination. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.P.Ahuja v. State of Punjab and others AIR 2000 SC 1080. Learned Single Judge did not find any merit in the plea of the appellant and held that the order could not be held to be stigmatic and judgment in V.P.Ahuja (supra) was LPA No.1349 of 2009 distinguishable. The order was not founded on misconduct though misconduct may have been the motive. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The State of Punjab v. Parkash Singh 1975(2) SLR 85, V.P.Ahuja (supra) and Mathew P. Thomas v. Kerala State Civil Supply Corpn. Ltd. and ors. 2003(3) SLR 150, to submit that the order was violative of Article 311 of the Constitution, as the same was punitive. 6. We do not find any merit in this contention. It is well settled that mere taking into account the adverse conduct, is not enough to hold that foundation of the order was misconduct. Parameters of the foundation for holding misconduct are well known i.e. finding of guilt in a regular inquiry. Reference may be made to judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla 1991 (1) SCC 691 and Municipal Committee, Sirsa v. Munshi Ram AIR 2005 SC 792. 7. In view of above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE February 11, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 2