STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question raised in the instant appeal filed by the defendant-appellant is "Whether termination of service of an employee on the ground of suppression of material facts regarding his conviction in a criminal case would be justified -

(2.) Defendant-appellant-State of Haryana has filed the instant appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') challenging the judgment dated 14.12.2001 rendered by the Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh reversing the view taken by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Chandigarh. The Civil Judge by his judgment and decree dated 23.4.2001 had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent wherein order dated 25.6.1991 passed by the defendant-appellant removing the plaintiff-respondent from service and the order dated 7.1.1992 dismissing his departmental appeal were challenged.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent was appointed on the post of driver on 12.5.1981 in the office of Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana Chandigarh. However, the Director vide his order dated 25.6.1991 removed him from service without holding any departmental enquiry. It is further averred that the appointment letter was issued to the plaintiff-respondent by one Smt. Ved Chaudhary who has been the real sister of plaintiff-respondent. The post of driver was sponsored through the Employment Exchange and it is claimed that all the documents like attestation form etc. were filled by his sister in her own handwriting. It has further been averred that plaintiff-respondent merely signed the documents and the address given in the attestation form by the plaintiff-respondents is c/o Om Parkash Chaudhary Farms, Village Shahpur (Near Sector 38), Chandigarh who is stated to be the step-brother of Smt. Ved Chaudhary, defendant-respondent No. 2. The plaintiff-respondent having joined his duties and had been working till his services were terminated by the defendant-appellant on 25.6.1991. The aforementioned termination order has been passed by the defendant-appellant on a complaint made by one Dalip Singh on 6.9.1991 which accompanied the copy of FIR and judgment of the criminal Court convicting the plaintiff-respondent in the year 1980. He was convicted by the Court of Sessions and his appeal was also dismissed by the High Court. The afore-mentioned case pertains to the period when he was working as octroi Moharrir in the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. It is further claimed that complaint has infact been made by defendant-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on account of personal enmity because they have been making efforts to usurp the land of the plaintiff-respondent. It is further asserted that litigation between the plaintiff-respondent and defendant-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is pending. The impugned order is alleged to have been passed without affording any opportunity to the plaintiff- respondent. Even the departmental appeal of the plaintiff-respondent had been dismissed.