I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) The services of the petitioner who concededly was appointed as a teacher on ad hoc basis some time in the year 1974, were regularised as such on July 16, 1980, vide order Annexure P. 1, in view of the policy decision of the Government laying down that those ad hoc employees who had completed two years service by Nov. 31, 1979, be regularised. One of the conditions of this order Annexure P. 1, was as follows:- "The appointment is revokable without any notice in case any factual error or faulty date is detected at any time." Later vide order dated May 9, 1985, Annexure P.5, his services were terminated. This order reads as follows:- "The services of Shri Ishwar Singh son of Shri Amar Singh Chhimbi village & P.O. Kalwa were regularised vide this office order No. A-5(C&V)-80 dated 18/19-7-80 (vide srl. No. 23) in compliance with the instructions embodied in Haryana Govt, letter No. 14/7-80-Edu. 111(4) dated 1.7.1980, as drawing teacher in Govt. Higher Secondary School, Safidon. While verifying character antecedents of Shri Ishwar Singh, Drawing Teacher, G.H.S.S., Safidon, the Superintendent of police, Jind, has reported vide his letter No. 15015 dated 22.4.85, that his name appears on Bundle-A of Police Station Safidon and consequently reported as having bad character. In terms of condition No.8 of his orders of regularisation dated 18/19.7.80 and further on furnishing wrong affidavit dated 4.7.1980, his appointment as drawing teacher is hereby revoked with immediate effect as his services are no longer required. Sd/-Jagbir Singh District Education Officer, Jind
(2.) It is patent from this order that the services of the petitioner have been terminated for two reasons (i) that the Superintendent of police, Jind, had reported that the name of the petitioner appeared in Bundle-A of Police Station, Safidon and (ii) that he had filed a wrong affidavit dated July 4, 1980. It has been explained by the learned counsel for the respondents that what was wrong in this affidavit was the statement of the petitioner that he was not a previous convict. It is conceded on behalf of the petitioner in the petition itself that he was tried for an offence under section 411, I.P.C., but was later acquitted by the Appellate Court on July 26, 1980 vide judgment Annexure P.6. It is further averred on his behalf that on April 17, 1985 he had been summoned by respondent No. 3, i.e., Station House Officer of Police Station, Safidon, and was told that since he was a convict, he could not continue in service unless he satisfied the police by paying Rs. 5000.00. Though it has been denied by this respondent that he ever made any such demand from the petitioner, yet he has conceded that he was never aware of the acquittal of the petitioner vide judgment Annexure P.6.
(3.) The respondents were directed to produce the affidavit dated July 4, 1980, alleged to have been filed by the petitioner containing the wrong averment that he was not a convict but in spite of repeated adjournments granted to them for the purpose they have failed to produce that affidavit. Their stand is that the same is no more traceable on their record. Similarly so far as the other factual aspect is concerned, i.e., the name of the petitioner existed in Bundle-A of Police Station, Safidon, his stand is that as a matter of fact he was never informed of the same nor was ever sent for by the police of that police station in that connection. He maintains that he never appeared before the Sub-Inspector or reported to him as he was required to in case his name did exist in Bundle-A. The relevant averments made by the petitioner in this regard in paragraph 11 . of the petition have been replied to in the following manner by respondent No.3:- "Para No. 11. The contents of para No. 11 are incorrect, hence denied. The petitioner was placed in bad character Bundle (a) of Police Station Safidon on 16.8.1978 and he remained on the said list till 12.12.1980 when his name was transferred to Personal file." It is thus patent that this respondent has tried to avoid the reply to the averments made by the petitioner in this paragraph. In view of this I accept the stand of the petitioner that neither he was made aware of his name having been entered in Bundle-A nor was he ever called to the police station in that connection. Thus this reason stated in the impugned order too cannot be taken to have been established.;