AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS have approached this Court impugning the order dated 05.08.2011 (Annexure P -5) vide which their services have been terminated. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been terminated merely because they were contractual employees in the institute whereas there is no involvement of the petitioners either in the purchase or on the receipt of the items which were purchased by the Purchase Committee. The payment was also not made through the petitioners and the bills were in the name of the Principal who had made payment. Referring to the impugned order of termination dated 05.08.2011 (Annexure P -5), counsel for the petitioners contends that their names do not figure in the list of employees against whom departmental proceedings have been initiated or action have been taken for misconduct or causing loss to the department. She contends that in para 10 of the impugned order, names of the petitioners figured without finding anything against them and merely because they are contractual employees working in the same institute, their services have been terminated. She contends that as a consequence of order dated 05.08.2011 (Annexure P -5), orders dated 13.09.2011 (Annexures P -6 and P -7) have been passed vide which the contract of their appointment stands terminated. This, the counsel for the petitioner contends, is not sustainable as there is no base or ground for terminating the appointment/contract of the petitioners.
(2.) COUNSEL for the respondents, on the other hand, states that the petitioners are contractual employees and, therefore, have no right to approach this Court. He contends that steel almirahs were purchased which were used by the petitioners and, therefore, they should have reported the matter to the competent authority about quality of the alimirahs which were supplied to them. Therefore, they were held responsible by the department and action was taken against them. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. The order which had led to the termination of the services of the petitioners is dated 05.08.2011 (Annexure P -5) passed by the Director Industrial Training, Haryana -respondent No.2. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the names of the petitioners do not figure in the list of employees who have been found to be misconducting or against whom departmental action has been initiated. The report of the Lok Ayukta which is the basis for proceeding against the other employees also does not indicate that the petitioners were in any manner involved in the said process. Neither were they called by the Lok Ayukta, nor were there any allegations against them. The findings also did not indicate that the petitioners, in any manner, were involved in purchase or receipt of the material. The findings of the Lok Ayukta which have been reproduced in the order dated 05.08.2011 as also the recommendations which have been as mentioned in para 4 and 5 of the impugned order read as follows: - "4. However, it has been observed that the lapse was also attributable to the members of the Purchase Committee namely Instructors Shri Revti Raman Gaur and Shri Kiranpal Singh who had failed to check these specifications before submitting their report to the Principal." 5. The recommendation: From the above finding read as following: "Accordingly, even as per Inquiry Officer action is warranted against the Principal and the members of the Purchase Committee namely the Instructors Shri Revti Raman Gaur amd Shri Kiranpal Singh. It is, therefore, recommended that action be taken against them. Regarding the purchase made from M/s K.K. Transformers it has been observed that no verification could be made as Smt. Manju Jain who had been asked to appear before the Inquiry Officer had failed to do so nor had produced any evidence of her doing that business from her house. The allegation that the purchases shown to have been made from M/s K.K. Transformers are bogus thus is to be accepted. It is not possible to believe that the representative of the Government Agency would not buy things from the market and instead make the purchase from somebody's house. The Principal has, therefore, failed to prove the purchase made from M/s K.K. Transformers and, therefore, is liable for action on this count. If such an explanation of purchases is to be accepted then the purchase made by Government Organizations would not be open to verification. It is, therefore, recommended that appropriate action for showing bogus purchases from M/s K.K. Transformers be taken against the Principal or the members responsible for making those purchases. The payments shown to have been made to K.K. Transformers Centre should also be recovered from them. The complaint has expressed his satisfaction with the above conclusions. In view of the above, it is recommended that the Government should take immediate action in accordance with law against the delinquent public servants. The complaint stands disposed of." In Para 6 of the impugned order, it has been stated as follows: - 6. Action against the Principal, Shri Jaivart Sharma is pending with the Government. Action in respect of Sh./Shri Jai Gopal Singh, Vice Principal; Gurmail Singh, Group Instructor, Amar Goyal, Mechanist Instructor, Kamal Kalra, Diesel Mechanic; Surender Kumar, Welder Instructor, Revti Rama Gaur, Fitter Instructor and Kiranpal Singh, Fitter Instructor in the matter of bogus purchase from the M/s K.K. Transformers indicating grave and serious misconduct and causing loss as calculated/determined by the Inquiry Officer was initiated by the Directorate." A perusal of the above would also indicate that the petitioners do not figure anywhere in the matter. The basic issue which was involved was with regard to the quality of the steel almirah which was purchased by the officials whose names find mentioned in the para 6 of the impugned order. The name of the petitioners crop up only in para 10 of the impugned order where, without giving any reason or attributing any misconduct to them, they were held responsible for the loss and their service were ordered to be terminated. In view of the above, I do not find any ground for terminating the contract which has been entered into between the petitioners and respondents and, therefore, order dated 05.08.2011 (Annexure P -5) as also the consequential orders dated 13.09.2011 (Annexures P -6 and P -7) are not sustainable.
(3.) THE writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 05.08.2011 (Annexure P -5) alongwith consequential orders dated 13.09.2011 (Annexures P -6 and P -7) stand quashed. Petitioners are ordered to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits provided they submit an affidavit to the effect that during this period, they were not gainfully employed elsewhere.;