JAGBIR SINGH Vs. HARYANA SAHITYA AKADEMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the Petitioner was appointed as Driver by the Haryana Sahitya Akademi-Respondent (for brevity "Respondent Akademi") on probation for period of one year, by virtue of appointment letter dated 6.10.1987 (Annexure P1). As no extension was conveyed to the Petitioner, therefore, he was claimed to have completed the period of probation.

(2.) The Petitioner maintained that he applied for leave for a period of three days from 30.3.1990 to 3.4.1990 as his mother was very serious. He requested to extend the leave to enable him to attend his ailing mother. However, he received the letters dated 6.4.1990 and 17.4.1990 (Annexures P2 and P3) respectively, by means of which, he was directed to report on duty by the Administrative Officer of Respondent-Akademi. The Petitioner was stated to have again requested the Respondent-Akademi to extend his leave by sending a telegram, but again, he received another letter dated 15.5.1990 (Annexure P4), requiring him to inform it (Respondent-Akademi) where his mother was under treatment. He was also directed to produce the medical certificate of concerned CMO in this regard, failing which, it will be presumed that he remained absent from his duty without any leave/permission and disciplinary action would be taken against him. Since the Petitioner did not join the duty, despite repeated directions, so, his services were dispensed with, vide impugned order dated 14.6.1990 (Annexure P5). Thereafter the completion of one month's notice period, he was relieved, by way of impugned relieving order (Annexure P6) by the Respondent-Akademi.

(3.) The Petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders, invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia pleading that although the termination order (Annexure P5) is a simpliciter order, but actual reason of his termination was that he remained willfully absent from duty. Thus, his termination was stated to be by way of punishment and since no charge sheet was issued or any inquiry was held against him, so, the impugned orders (Annexures P5 and P6) were stated to be not only illegal, but against the principles of natural justice as well.