IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 15196/2008 Decided on:9.8.2011 _____________________________________________ Kuldeep Chand. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondent No.1 and 3. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate for respondent No.4. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Bhadsin on 7.5.2002 in sequel to notification dated 27.7.2001. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for allegedly felling trees from the Government land in Government Primary School, Bhadsin. Project 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Officer was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He submitted the report vide Annexure R-II. Thereafter, petitioner was served with a show cause notice vide Annexure A-2 dated 11.4.2007. He filed detailed reply to the same vide Annexure A-3 dated 18.4.2007. Services of the petitioner were terminated on 20.6.2007 by respondent No.2. 2. Mr. Onkar Jairath has strenuously argued that impugned order Annexure A-4 dated 20.6.2007 is without jurisdiction. According to him, petitioner was an employee of the Gram Panchayat, Gatwar, i.e. respondent No.3, as per notification dated 27.7.2001. He also argued that as per clause 18 of the notification, punishing authority in respect of Part Time Water Carrier is the Gram Panchayat. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the services of the petitioner have been terminated in accordance with law. 4. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar has supported the case of the petitioner. 5. Mr. K.B. Khajuria appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 has argued that his client has now been offered appointment as Part Time Water Carrier in 3 Government Primary School, Bhadsin on 2.7.2008 and he has resumed his duties. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 7. Appointment of the petitioner and the conditions of service are regulated under notification dated 27.7.2001. It is evident from clause 14 of the notification that the appointment of the selected Part Time Water Carrier is to be made on contractual basis by the employer Gram Panchayat after executing a proper agreement between a candidate selected for appointment and the employer Gram Panchayat on the prescribed form of agreement. It will be apt at this stage to take note of clause 18 of the notification dated 27.7.2001. It reads thus: “18. Appointing/Punishing Authority: The Part Time Water Carriers so required shall be contractual employees of the Gram Panchayat/Urban local Body for all intents and purposes. The appointing/punishing authority in respect of part time water carriers will be the employer Gram Panchayat/Urban Local Body.” 8. It is evident from the combined reading of clauses 14 and 18 of the notification dated 27.7.2001 that the employer of the petitioner is Gram Panchayat, i.e. respondent No.3, and the punishing authority is 4 also Gram Panchayat. In the instant case, inquiry has been held by the Project Officer as per Annexure R-II. Petitioner has been served with a show cause notice by respondent No.2 on 11.4.2007 to which a detailed reply was filed on 18.4.2011. The Court is of the considered view that respondent No.2 had no jurisdiction or authority to issue show cause notice to the petitioner. The Deputy Director, Primary Education had no jurisdiction to appoint Project Officer (Adult Education), Bilaspur as Inquiry Officer. Disciplinary action, if any, could be taken against the petitioner by respondent No.3 and not by respondent No.2. 9. Mr. Vikas Rathore has also argued that the petitioner has admitted his guilt by depositing a sum of ` 1673/-. It will not make any difference as far as present case is concerned. Similarly, termination order of the petitioner could not be issued by respondent No.2 vide order dated 20.6.2007. Mr. K.B. Khajuria has argued that his client has been appointed as Part Time Water Carrier in place of petitioner on 2.7.2008 and he has joined his duties. Since the termination of the petitioner dated 20.6.2007 is bad in law and the petitioner is liable to be reinstated in service, respondent No.4 cannot be permitted to continue to 5 discharge duties of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Bhadsin. 10. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-4 dated 20.6.2007 is quashed and set aside. Petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in service as Part Time Water Carrier in the Government Primary School, Bhadsin with all the consequential benefits. However, it is made clear that it shall be open to the employer to take appropriate action against the petitioner as per notification dated 27.7.2001. Respondent No.4 shall cease to work forthwith. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 9.8.2011 *awasthi*