- (1.) This appeal is by the State of Haryana, taking exception to the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Hissar, by which the order of termination of services of the plaintiff-respondent was held illegal and inoperative and the respondent was held to be in continuous service.
(2.) The plaintiff - respondent was appointed as a 'Beldar' (Fieldman in the Department of Deputy Director Agriculture, Hissar. The papers before me indicate than initially as per order Exhibit P.3 (which does not bear the date), the plaintiff-respondent was appointed as Fieldman for a period of six months. Exhibit D-3 is the next order dated 27.3.1974 which runs into following terms:- "Shri Jagdish Chander who was working on ad hoc basis is hereby appointed on regular basis after the expiry of his first term of ad hoc appointment w.e.f. 2.7.1973 in the pay scale 70-2-80/3-95 on purely temporary basis. His services will be terminated on the notice of one month on the either side provided it will be open to Government to pay in lieu of notice the salary for the period by which the notice falls short and simultaneously if he wishes to resign from the post he will do so by depositing one month's pay and allowances in lieu of the notice falls short. He should produce the following certificate:- 1. Medical fitness certificate on first entry into Govt. Service. 2. Certificate to the effect that he has only one living wife, if married. Sd/- K.S. Bindera Farm Superintendent, Govt. Agri. Farm, Hissar Ends. No. 660-61/PF Dated 27.3.1974 A copy is forwarded to the :- 1. Shri Sukbir Singh, Block Officer, Govt. Agriculture Farm, Hissar. 2. Shri Jagdish Chander, Fieldman for information and necessary action. Sd/- Farm Supdtt. Govt. Agri. Farm, Hissar."
(3.) The services of the plaintiff came to be terminated by notice that bears date 14.5.1976. It was informed that the plaintiff should take that notice as one month notice, at the end of which his services would stand terminated. Pursuant to the said notice, a termination order was issued and the plaintiff-respondent was relieved of his employment on 14.6.1976 Fore-noon. The plaintiff challenged this termination order. According to him the said termination order was issued by the authority not empowered to issue it. It was further contended that it was a mala fide action due to animosity with Inspector in the Department. It was contended that no opportunity was afforded to him to refute the charges against him. It was contended that notice was in violation of the provision of Article 311 of the Constitution.;