HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 7668/2008 (OA No.871/2001) Date of Decision: June 18, 2009 Darshan Lal ……. Petitioner Versus President, D.C. Zila Sainik Board & Anr. ….. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner : Mr. R. D. Kaundal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. K. S. Banyal, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 4.4.2001 (Annexure A-6), whereby his services as daily waged employee stands terminated with immediate effect. The petitioner was engaged as Chowkidar in Sainik Rest House, Nahan in terms of office order dated 8.7.1997 (Annexure A-1). There is no dispute that his engagement was that of a daily wager and he continued to be as such till the date of termination. Complaints Ext.R-1 & Ext.R-2 were received against the petitioner and consequently the Inquiry Officer (Tehsildar, Nahan) was directed to look into the alleged acts of misconduct on the part of the petitioner. His report was submitted in terms of letter dated 6.2.2001. Petitioner was also issued warnings (Annexure R-3 & Annexure R-4). Petitioner’s misbehaviour continued and consequently show cause notice dated 14.6.2000 (Annexure A-4) was issued to him which is reproduced in toto as under:- 2 “Sh. Darshan Lal, Chowkidar, Sainik Rest House, Nahan. Subject: Explanation/show cause notice MEMO It has been brought to the notice of the undersigned that you are not discharging your duties with devotion, which is established from the following facts:- 1. That on 2.3.2000, 16.3.2000 and 28.3.2000 you were absent from duty without prior permission & you were warned apart from disallowing you wages for these days. 2. Although you are allowed double the wages for Sundays, you are generally found absent. 3. It has also been complained that your behaviour with the visitors of the Rest House & staff of the Sainik Board is not proper. 4. It has also been noticed that you are found out of Rest House for most of time and consequently people coming to Rest House feel inconvenience and for staying they go elsewhere. Due to your this lapse, the income of the Rest House is deceasing (sic). It has also been directed to you that first of all, the Register should be got signed from the visitors but you are not following the same and the concerned register is filled according to your convenience, which is improper. 5. That you commit forgery in the receipt issued to the visitors, for example on 18.3.2000 two persons stayed in the Rest House Dormittary and charged Rs.40/- and receipt No.5757 was issued but in the counterfoil, Rs.10/- were entered. Likewise on 17.3.2000, you charged Rs.40/- from the person who stayed in room No.3 and issued receipt No.5771 but entered Rs.10/- in the counterfoil and columns of Room No. & amount received were kept blank. Apart from this on 23.5.2000 some visitors stayed who had from Dehradun and they 3 had taken one room. Because they were 4 persons, you gave two rooms and charged Rs.80/- while only entry of Rs.40/- was made. It is thus clear that you did not discharge duty with devotion & integrity and embezzled the Govt. cash. You are, therefore, called upon to explain within 15 days of the issue of this notice, why your service may not be terminated for the aforesaid lapses. If your reply is not received within the stipulated time, it will be presumed that you have nothing to say and in that case, action will be taken exparte.” The petitioner filed the reply to the same (Annexure A-5). The matter was looked into by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-President of the respondent Board, who after taking into account the entire service career, found that the petitioner had failed to improve his conduct and behaviour. The petitioner’s conduct was found to be unsatisfactory and his integrity and performance was found to be doubtful. As such, the authorities took the decision of terminating him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Tek Chand v. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (1987) 3 All India Service Law Journal 210. I am afraid the ratio of the said decision does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, the petitioner was not only issued warnings but issued show cause notice prior to the initiation of the action against him. It is not the case of gross violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioner was a daily wager. 4 For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is consequently dismissed, so also the pending application. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. June 18, 2009 (rana)