IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 14700 of 2008. Reserved on 25.02.2011. Decided on: 23.03.2011. _____________________________________________________ Ram Chand. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis in the respondent-department in the year, 1996. He was appointed on temporary basis vide office order dated 6th July, 2006 as Shepherd in the pay scale of Rs.2520-4140. He joined his duties on 08.07.2006. As per condition No. 1 of the office order dated 6th July, 2006, the appointment of the petitioner was on temporary basis and was subject to satisfactory verification of character and antecedents. The department has taken up the matter with the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla for verification of character and antecedents. The character and antecedents of the petitioner could not be verified due to registration of a Criminal Case No. 41 of 2004, dated 12.03.2004, under Sections 498-A, 354 and 120-B 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - of the Indian Penal Code, which was pending before the Court. Petitioner was given one month’s notice on 18th December, 2006 to clear his position by producing documentary evidence/proof through his Head Office, failing which, his services were to be terminated under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rule, 1965. Petitioner filed a detailed reply to office order dated 18th December, 2006 on 2nd January, 2007. However, the petitioner has failed to produce any proof of character antecedents, duly verified from the competent authority. His services were terminated vide office order dated 18th January, 2007 (Annexure A-4). 2. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the services of the petitioner could not be terminated without holding a regular enquiry. He then contended that the character and antecedents of the petitioner could only be verified after adjudication of the case filed against his client under Sections 498(A), 354 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Mr. A. K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the office order dated 18.01.2007 (Annexure A-4), whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings. 5. Petitioner has been offered the temporary appointment on 6th July, 2006. However, the appointment of the petitioner was subject to the verification of character and antecedents as per condition No. 2 of Annexure A-1, dated 6th July, 2006. The department had sent the papers for verification of - 3 - character and antecedents from the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla. The same could not be verified due to the pendency of a criminal case registered against the petitioner, under Sections 498(A), 354 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. He was granted one month’s notice to clear his position by producing the documentary evidence. Petitioner failed to do so, except mentioning in his reply to the show-cause notice that his case was at the fag end, the prosecution has closed its evidence and the case was listed for statement of the accused and thereafter, the same was to be fixed for defence evidence. According to him, the criminal case, in all probabilities, was likely to be decided in his favour. The petitioner has failed to get his character and antecedents verified from the competent authority. Since the appointment of the petitioner was on temporary basis and he has failed to get his character and antecedents verified from the competent authority, there is no illegality in terminating his services by the respondents by invoking Sub-rule of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. No regular inquiry was required to be held against the petitioner, since he was appointed on temporary basis and had already been granted an opportunity to get his character and antecedents verified from the competent authority. 6. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge March 23, 2011. (bhupender) - 4 - - 5 - `