Civil Writ Petition No. 6520 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 6520 of 2009 Date of decision: 12.10.2009 Manohar Lal ...petitioner Versus The Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and another ...respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Manohar Lall, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate for the respondents. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner applied for the post of Process Server on 29.1.2008. After interviewing the petitioner, he was appointed as Process Server on 26.3.2008. The petitioner was put on probation for a period of two years. On 19.1.2009, his services were dispensed with and the copy of order passed by District & Sessions Judge, Ambala in this regard is placed on record as Annexure P-4. The petitioner would complain against this order on the ground that the same is passed without assigning any reason and without giving him an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order, which was dismissed on 31.3.2009. He has now filed this writ petition to impugn both the orders dated 19.1.2009 and 31.3.2009. The precise submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that though the order dispensing with the services of the petitioner Civil Writ Petition No. 6520 of 2009 2 may appear to be an innocuous one but this is a punitive and this would reveal from the appellate order as well as from the reply which has now been filed, in response to the notice issued in this writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the fact, which was noticed by the appellate authority that the appellant was warned number of time to improve his conduct and that there are complaints by three women employees namely Radha, Vandana Sharma and Pooja against him. The report also was that he was not performing his duties properly, though his work and conduct was found satisfactory by Sh. Amit Kumar Arya, one of the officer with whom the petitioner had worked. Counsel would refer to the averment made in the reply, which according to him would give the real purpose for dispensing with the services of the petitioner but the order is couched in a language to make it look innocuous. Counsel has referred to an incident where the petitioner is alleged to have driven a car of a judicial officer when told to put some article/camper in the car on the date when there was Mega Lok Adalat. The petitioner allegedly drove this car without permission and caused an accident damaging the car. He did not bring this fact to the notice of judicial officer. The allegation of theft from steno room was also made against the petitioner by Ms. Radha, Judgment Writer, Ms. Vandana Sharma, Steno Typist and Ms. Pooja, Copy Clerk. It is further noted that the petitioner was warned number of time to improve his conduct but he failed to do so and ultimately the action was taken under Rule 8 (2) and he being on probation his service has been dispensed with. As per the counsel, this would give out the real purpose of dispensing Civil Writ Petition No. 6520 of 2009 3 with the service of the petitioner. From this, counsel would urge that the order is not an innocuous order but a punitive one and could have been passed only after following the procedure prescribed for this and after holding proper inquiry. In support, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment in the case of V.P. Ahuja versus State of Punjab and others 2000 (2) SLR 1. In this case, the order passed against the delinquent employee contained an averment that he failed in performance of his duty administratively and technically. It was inter alia held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that this was a stigmatic order. The same was set aside and direction was issued to put the delinquent employee back into service. It is worth noticing that in the case of V.P. Ahuja (supra), the order itself was found to be stigmatic. That cannot be said about the impugned order, Annexure P-4, in this case. In this context, it would be appropriate to reproduce the order itself: “ The service of Shri Manohar Lal, Process Server of the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala Cannt, who is on probation period, are hereby dispensed with, with immediate effect. He is relieved from the post forthwith.” The order as such is simplicitor in nature and cannot be termed as stigmatic. The ratio of law laid down in V.P. Ahuja's case (supra) thus would not strictly apply. The stand taken in the reply to an extent and the appellate order, may tend to give an indication as to what facts have been taken into consideration to come to a conclusion that the petitioner's services are not satisfactory. On that Civil Writ Petition No. 6520 of 2009 4 basis, it may not be possible to say that the order is stigmatic. The reason to come to this conclusion may be based on these facts but ultimately order is simplicitor in nature, dispensing with the services of the petitioner. The averment made in the reply or observation made in the appellate order thus would not form part of the order, which cannot be termed as punitive in any manner. The submission that the Court must lift the veil and see the real reason of course would also not strictly apply here, for the simple reason that these facts apparently have been taken into consideration to come to the conclusion whether the work and conduct of the petitioner could be termed as satisfactory or not. The order does not in any manner lead to award the punishment to the petitioner. No further observation need to be made lest it is again said that this has been so viewed by this Court while disposing the writ petition. I am thus not inclined to interfere and would dismiss the same. There shall be no order as to costs. The writ petition is dismissed. October 12, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE