Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. - (1.) PETITIONER impugns the order dated 15.10.2010 (Annexure P -20) whereby his services were terminated.
(2.) WHEN the case was taken up on 15.3.2013, following order was passed: - Counsel for the respondents prays for an adjournment to file an affidavit showing therein that after receipt of reply to the charge sheet issued to the petitioner on 12.3.2010, a regular departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner and thereafter a show cause notice was issued and on receipt of reply to the said show cause notice, the competent authority had proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner. The said affidavit be filed within a period of six weeks In compliance of the abovesaid order passed by this Court, affidavit dated 13.8.2013 of Roop Lal, District Education Officer, (S.D.), Kapurthala was filed and the stand taken in para 5 thereof, reads as under: - That it is admitted that after the receipt of reply to the charge sheet from the petitioner, neither a regular departmental inquiry was conducted against him nor a show cause notice was issued before inflicting the punishment of termination from service. However, before taking a conscious decision on the charges leveled against the petitioner in charge sheet, as already stated in para No. 4 (supra), the petitioner was given proper opportunity to defend his case by affording him two personal hearings. As such, the principle of natural justice was taken in view while deciding the charge sheet of the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised twin arguments. Firstly, he submits that admittedly, no regular departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner before terminating his services and the impugned order of termination was illegal on the face of it. Secondly, he submits that impugned order was passed by an authority, who did not have any jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. He relies on the statutory rules known as Punjab State Education (Class III) (School Cadre) Service Rules 1978, to contend that it was the Director Public Instructions (S.E.), who was competent to pass the impugned order and against the order passed by the Director, an appeal would lie before respondent No. 1, who has passed the impugned order. Thus, even the statutory right of appeal of the petitioner was taken away.;