Case: Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab &amp; Others Vs. Tek Chand

The brief facts leading to this Appeal are as under:The respondent was appointed as conductor in Punjab Roadways,1 on temporary basis on 20.08.1979. His services were terminated as he was detected in a fraud case on 18.09.1979. Suppressing the said fact of his termination, the respondent applied to the post of clerk in the Office of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab on 23.05.1980 and was appointed as clerk onc basis. Respondent joined duty on 26.05.1980 as clerk in Cooperation Department, Punjab. Government of Punjab issued a general order dated 26.10.1982 to regularize the services ofc employees as one time measure subject to the terms and conditions contained in the said order. While processing for the regularization of thec employees, the respondents name was also taken into consideration. The authorities informed that the respondent had concealed the fact that he was appointed in the Transport Department and was terminated by an order of termination, relieving the respondent from duties on 22.03.19833. Thereafter the respondent filed a suit for declaration that he was a regular employee and for consequential relief of permanent injunction against the appellants from terminating his services. By the judgment dated 20.10.1984 the Trial Court i.e. Learned Senior Sub Judge, Rupnagar dismissed the suit. Thereafter the respondent approached the District Court, Rupnagar by way of first appeal. However, the respondent withdrew the said appeal with liberty to file a fresh suit for challenging the legality and validity of the order of termination dated 22.03.1983. Thereafter, the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 232 of 7.12.1985 before learned Senior Sub Judge, Rupnagar for declaration that he is entitled to continue in service from 22.03.1983 and for consequential relief of salary and other emoluments. He also prayed for a declaration that the order of termination of his services dated 22.03.1983 was illegal, void and is against the principles of natural justice. The learned Senior Sub Judge Rupnagar dismissed the suit on 12.11.1987, which judgment came to be questioned by the respondent by filing Civil Appeal before the learned District Judge, Rupnagar. Learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, allowed the Appeal on0 and set aside the judgment of the Trial Court dated 12.11.1987. The District Judge held that the respondent should be deemed in continuous service from 22.03.1983 and was entitled to consequential reliefs as if his services had not been terminated. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the appellants herein filed Regular Second Appeal No. RSA 1804 of 1990 (O&M) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, which came to be partly allowed on 14.07.2016. The High Court set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court to a certain extent i.e. in part. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus:9. In view of these facts and circumstances, the order of the Appellate Court is set aside in so far as deemed to be in continuous service from that date, entitled to consequential reliefs as if his services had not been terminated. The Appellant shall also entitled to costs are concerned. The Appellant are directed to held an enquiry, in accordance with law with reference to decision taken for the purpose of regularization on 23.2.1983 after giving necessary hearing to the Respondent within a period of 6 months from today10. In the meanwhile, status of the Respondent would be deemed to be under suspension. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court passed in Managing Director ECIL v. B. Karunakar reported as 1994 SCC, Suppliers(2) 391. The Respondent is entitled for subsistence allowance as per the provisions. The same shall be calculated and disbursed within a period of 3 months and continue to pay subsistence allowance till a decision is taken in the enquiry11. Appeal stands disposed ofThe appellants having been aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court are before us.

Reasoning:
There is no doubt, that in case some adverse order against the public servant is to be passed, the justification of the same is to be seen through the eye of the provisions contained in the Constitution and Service Rules applicable to that servant regardless of the nature of his employmentUndoubtedly as pleaded by the plaintiff/respondent himself that he was appointed inc basis on 26.05.1980 and there has been an extension of service but only onc basis and ultimately on 22.03.1983 his services were terminated as per Annexure. It is not disputed by the appellants that there is a policy decision by the Government of Punjab that the services of the employees with certain length of continuous service were to be regularized as one time measure, if such employees fulfill all the conditions laid therein. In the instant case, the appellants did not however, consider it proper to regularize the services of the plaintiff/respondent because in an enquiry held by them it was found that the services of the plaintiff/respondent were terminated by the Transport Department on account of some fraud/embezzlement committed by him (which fact was suppressed by him). In any case, the appellants never mentioned such fact in the impugned order, which is as harmless and innocuous as it could bed order of termination is plain and simple, it cannot be said that there is any stigma attached to the plaintiff by the order. Under the relevant Service Rules, the services of anc employee like the plaintiff/respondent herein are liable to be terminated at any point of time as soon as the regular incumbent joins or after a period of only six months whichever is earlier or if his work and conduct is found unsatisfactory. Even as per the appointment letter of the respondent, the services of the respondent were liable to be terminated at any point of time when regular incumbent joins or after six months of his service whichever is earlier. Thus the order of termination is in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the appointment letter. When the file was put up before the Departmental Scrutiny Committee for considering the case of the respondent for regularization of his services, the said Committee did not approve the case of the respondent for regularization. It did not mention any word in the order which depicts that the order of termination suffers from taint of being stigmatic in nature. Since nothing is mentioned in the order of termination about the act of the respondent suppressing his termination from the Transport Department on the grounds of fraud/embezzlement, it cannot be said that stigma was attached to the respondent. If it is so, no occasion arose for thet to conduct an enquiry afresh against the respondent.