Permod Kohli, J. - (1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Faridkot, whereby two appeals being Civil Appeal Nos. 19 of 2001 (Zila Parishad and Anr. v/s. Bhinder Singh) and 15 of 2001 (Bhinder Singh v/s. The Zila Parishad and Anr.), against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division). Faridkot, have been decided.
(2.) THE appellant herein, was an employee of the Zila Parishad, Faridkot. He was appointed as Sweeper -cum -Chowkidar vide appointment' letter dated 17.05.1995. His services were dispensed with vide order dated 13.03.1996 on the ground that his work and conduct was un -satisfactory. This order came to be passed during the period of probation.
(3.) AGGRIEVED of dispensation of his services, the appellant challenged the order in Civil Suit seeking a declaration that the order dispensing with his services is illegal unjust etc. He also sought a decree for arrears of salary and other benefits. The learned trial Court framed two issues. Issue No. 1 was regarding the validity of the order of dispensing with the service of the plaintiff, whereas issue No. 2 was regarding the salary. The learned trial Court decreed the suit holding that the order of dispensing with the services of the plaintiff is illegal and punitive in nature and has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the learned trial Court decreed the suit for arrears of salary also. The respondents herein preferred appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court before the learned District Judge, Faridkot, who reversed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 04.02.2003. As a matter of fact, two appeals were preferred before the learned District Judge: one by the present appellant and the other by the respondents -Zila Parishad and another. The appeal preferred by the respondent Zila Parishad, Faridkot, and another being Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2001 has been allowed, whereas one filed by the present appellant being Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2001 has been dismissed. The learned Lower Appellate Court has ruled that the order of dispensing with the services of the plaintiff, wherein it contains the remarks "work and conduct un -satisfactory" , is not punitive in nature.;