LAKHI RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
VIPIN SANGHI, J. -
(1.) The petitioner was appointed as casual substitute bunglow khalasi on 10.3.2003 and was performing the work of peon/telephone attendant. He acquired temporary status on 5.7.2003. The temporary status was extended for a further period of three months, as the working of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. He was orally warned to improve his working style. A complaint of indecent behaviour was also reported on account of which a memo dated 25.8.2004 was served upon the petitioner to improve his working and behaviour. He was also warned that disciplinary action would be initiated against him in case he did not improve his working and behaviour. On 27.1.2005 a final opportunity was given to him to improve behaviour and work since there was no improvement despite earlier notice. He was warned that if his behaviour and work does not improve, action would be taken to terminate his services. Eventually by order dated 14.2.2005 the services of the petitioner were terminated by giving him one month's notice on the ground that his work and behaviour were not found to be satisfactory despite repeated oral warnings and warnings in writing dated 10.5.2004, 25.8.2004 and 27.1.2005.
(2.) The petitioner filed OA No.450/2005 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act to challenge his termination on the ground that it was stigmatic and punitive and it was not preceded by an enquiry. It was contended that the termination notice made reference to an earlier letters, inter alia, dated 25.8.2004 and 27.1.2005 where indecent misbehaviour/misbehaviour, which is a misconduct, was alleged against the petitioner. He contended that without following the due process of law and holding an enquiry his services could not be terminated. The Tribunal by its impugned order dated 11.4.2005 dismissed the original application. The petitioner preferred Review Application being RA No.124/2005 to challenge the aforesaid order, which has also been dismissed by the Tribunal on 1.6.2005.
(3.) Against the order of dismissal of his OA dated 11.4.2005 and the dismissal of his RA dated 1.6.2005, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.