J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the order Annexure P3 dated 30th April, 1986 whereby the services of the petitioner were dispensed with immediate effect, as also Annexure P7 dated 17th July, 1986.
(2.) The petitioner initially joined service in HCMS Group'B' in the year 1977. In the year 1983, Haryana Public Service Commission selected him for appointment to the HCMS Group 'A' and vide order dated 2nd March, 1983, he was appointed by respondent No. 1 as Senior Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sirsa. He joined as such on 4th March, 1983. Initially, his period of probation was for two years which could be extended for one year more as provided by rule 10 of the Haryana Civil Medical (Group'A') Service Rules, 1981. Subsequently, vide order Annexure P2 dated 29th November, 1985, the period of his probation was extended for another year, i.e., up to 3rd March, 1986. That being so, the petitioner completed three years of his probation as on 3rd March, 1986, and admittedly the period of probation could not be extended beyond that. But in spite of that, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with vide Annexure P3 in terms of rule 10(3)(b) of the Rules. It appears that when it came to the notice of the State Government that order Annexure P3 dispensing with the services of the petitioner was illegal, as the three years period of his probation having already elapsed, the same was withdrawn vide order dated 8th May, 1986 (Annexure P4). After withdrawing order P3, the State Government served a charge-sheet upon the petitioner on 8th July, 1986, levelling serious charges against him. A copy of the charge-sheet being Annexure P5. Before the petitioner could file his reply to the charge-sheet, the same was also withdrawn vide order dated 17th July, 1986 (Annexure P6). Again, vide order dated 17th July, 1986 (Annexure P7), the services of the petitioner were dispensed with immediate effect. According to the petitioner, his services have been dispensed with as a measure of punishment. Once he was served with a charge-sheet levelling serious charges, it was incumbent upon the respondents to hold a regular departmental enquiry after giving him due and reasonable opportunity to defend him. Having failed to do so and withdrawal of the charge-sheet and again dispensing with the services of the petitioner, the action of the respondents was wholly illegal, mala fide, against the Rules and also unconstitutional. Allegations of mala fide were also made against respondent No. 2. i.e., Dr. Ghanshyam Sharma, Director, Health Services Haryana. Surprisingly enough, no separate reply has been filed by him to controvert the same.
(3.) In the return filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 through its Joint Secretary, it is averred that the services of the petitioner were dispensed with vide order dated 30th April, 1986, in terms of rule 10(3)(b)(i) of the Rules, and, therefore, there was no necessity to comply with the procedure as laid down under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952.;