- (1.) The petitioner-Krishan Kumar Rao, who come to be employed as a Godown Keeper by the respondent - Haryana Warehousing Corporation on 16.7.1985, ever since his first order of retrenchment seems to be in protracted litigation with the respondent - Corporation. The challenge herein is with regard to the appointment of Enquiry Officer which order was passed after issuing show cause notice and the statement of allegations and after prima facie holding that the reply given by the petitioner was not satisfactory. Before, however, the precise challenge to the aforesaid proceedings is noticed any further, it shall be useful to notice the facts that culminated in the order of appointment of the Enquiry Officer.
(2.) The petitioner, after passing Matriculation examination from the Central Board of High Education, initially sought employment as a clerk in the Haryana State Industries & Export Corporation, Chandigarh. He was appointed with the said Corporation on a consolidated salary of Rs.450/- p.m. on 6.3.1985. Thereafter on account of circumstances beyond the control of the Haryana State Industries & Export Corporation, the surplus staff was asked to quit, as a result of which the petitioner was also rendered jobless. It is thereafter that he applied for his appointment as Godown Keeper with the respondent - Corporation and was so appointed on ad hoc basis for a period of 12 weeks on 16.7.1985. On the expiry of the period referred to above, he was once again appointed for a period of 12 weeks vide orders, a copy whereof has been annexed as annexure P-2. On the expiry of this period as well, he was further appointed for another period of 12 weeks and for yet another period of 12 weeks vide order dated 16.5.1986. It is pleaded that the petitioner was discharging similar functions and duties as of regular employees and was transferred from Hansi to Bhiwani vide order dated 24.5.1986. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 24.3.1986. This constrained him to raise industrial dispute in the Labour Court and after resultant trial on the issues framed by the Labour Court, he was reinstated vide award dated 7.1.1988 (annexure P-5). The order of termination was obviously set aside and he was ordered to be reinstated forthwith with continuity of service and back wages. The award thus attained finality and that being so, petitioner was reinstated vide orders dated 26.4.1988. He took the charge of his office in State Warehousing Corporation, Mallekhan District Sirsa. While in service there, which according to him, was to the total satisfaction of his superiors there being no complaint against him regarding work and conduct, one Shri Gopi Ram resident of the same place, however, made a complaint to the respondent - Corporation on the basis of which he was placed under suspension vide orders dated 28.2.1989 (annexure P-7). He had, prior to the order of termination, been employed for a period of over 240 days and after reinstatement, for a period of little more than 9 months. After suspension, he was also given a memo dated 3.8.1988 with statement of allegations, a copy whereof has been placed on the records of this case as annexure P-8. He was asked to submit reply/representation. Consequently, he gave a detailed reply inter alia stating that after coming to know that some vacancies of Godown Keepers were lying vacant, he had applied for the said posts along with certified copies of the documents pertaining to his educational qualifications. The concerned official checked these documents and thereafter on 16.7.1985, he was appointed as Godown Keeper with the Corporation at Bhiwani. He submitted joining report on 25.4.1985 and he was issued orders from time to time till 22.4.1986 and the Labour Court had given award in his favour in compliance whereof, he was reinstated and he submitted joining report at State Warehousing Corporation, Mallekhan. A copy of the representation has been placed on the records of this case as annexure P-9. The various pleas raised by the petitioner in his reply, however, did not satisfy the respondent-Corporation and he was once again ordered to quit the job on 2.6.1989. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner came complaining about his dismissal from service in this Court vide C.W.P. No.9301 of 1989. The writ petition was admitted and the operation of the orders impugned therein was stayed by a Divisional Bench of this Court on 24.7.1989. This left no choice with the respondent-Corporation but for to take him back in service regarding which the orders were actually passed on 24.7.1989. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the Managing Director of the Corporation withdrew the order annexure P-10 dismissing him from service vide order dated 9.10.1989. The first writ petition thus became infructuous and was accordingly dismissed. On the basis of the order vide which the first writ was dismissed as infructuous, the Managing Director of the Corporation passed the order dated 5.1.1990 which was, however, issued on 11.1.1990 vide which the Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold departmental enquiry into the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet dated 8.3.1989. It is this order of appointing an Enquiry Officer and proceedings thereafter that have been called into question as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment.
(3.) Before the matter is proceeded any further, it would be significant to mention that in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court on 27.1.1990 admitting the writ petition and staying the enquiry during the pendency of the petition, however, and application for vacation of stay was filed by the respondent - Corporation and the order dated 27.1.1990 was modified. The respondent - Corporation was permitted to go ahead with the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner but passing of final order was stayed. It is thus clear that ever since the petitioner was taken back in service in consequence of the order passed by the Labour Court, he continues to be in service and in that manner, has put in more than six years of actual service by now. To further clarify, it is mentioned here that this period of six years is excluding the period when litigation inter se the parties was going on before the Labour Court.;