Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. - (1.) THE matrix of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Petitioner Dr. Sukhpal Varni was appointed as Hindi Lecturer on 12.11.1988 by the Managing Committee of I.B. College, Panipat Respondent No. 4 (for brevity "Respondent -Managing Committee") in the pay scale of Rs. 2200 -4000, on probation for a period of one year, vide appointment letter (Annexure P1). The Petitioner claimed that although his work and conduct was satisfactory, but the Principal of the Respondent -Managing Committee concocted a false story/case against him and tried to play with his career. Consequently, his services were terminated, by way of impugned letter dated 16.10.1989 (Annexure P2). The appeal (Annexure P3) filed by the Petitioner was dismissed by the Director of Higher Education, Haryana (Respondent No. 2), by means of impugned order dated 23.1.1990 (Annexure P4). The revision (Annexure P5) filed by the Petitioner was dismissed as well, by the Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Haryana (Respondent No. 1), by virtue of impugned order dated 16.10.1991 (Annexure P6).
(2.) THE Petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P2, P4 & P6), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter -alia pleading that his services were not dispensed with on account of his unsatisfactory work and conduct, but it was on the ground of misconduct and in an arbitrary manner, without issuing any show cause notice and affording opportunity of being heard to him. According to the Petitioner, although the impugned termination order caused aspersion on his conduct and is stigmatic, but still his services were terminated without following the due procedure of inquiry and in complete violations of the statutory rules. The impugned orders were stated to be, not only illegal and arbitrary, but against the principles of natural justice as well. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the Petitioner sought the quashment of impugned orders (Annexures P2, P4 and P6) in the manner depicted hereinabove. The Respondent -Managing Committee contested the claim of the Petitioner and filed its written statement, inter -alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the writ petition, cause of action and locus standi of the Petitioner. The case set up by the contesting Respondent, in brief in so far as relevant, was that the Petitioner was appointed on probation on 12.11.1988. As his work and conduct was not satisfactory, therefore, his services were dispensed with on 16.10.1989 during the period of probation. He was confronted with the situation, vide various letters (Annexures R -4/2 to R -4/12) in this regard. Sufficient opportunities were stated to have been provided to the Petitioner to improve, but in vain. Keeping in view the unsatisfactory work and conduct of the Petitioner, termination simpliciter order was passed during the period of probation. The impugned orders (Annexures P2, P4 and P6) were stated to be legal and valid. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting Respondent has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. That is how, I am seized of the matter.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, going through the record and legal position with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this respect.;