S.N.MODI, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality of the order termination the petitioner's services.
(2.) IT is common ground between the parties that the petitioner on being selected by the Selection Commission constituted under Section 86(6) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1939 was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on probation for two years in the Panchayat Samiti Baitu vide order dated 3 -7 -67. The petitioner jointed the post in the same day. By resolution dated 5.8.69 the Finance, Taxation and Administration Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samitis, Baitu extended the period of probation of the petitioner upto 5.8.69 and by the same order terminated his services. The relevant portion of the resolution dated 5.8.69 is in these terms: .........[vernacular ommited text]........... Pursuant to the above resolution, the Vikas Adhikari communicated the resolution passed by the said Standing Committee to the petitioner vide order dated 6.8.69. The order of the Vikas Adhikari runs as under: .........[vernacular ommited text]........... Aggrieved the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition to the Government but without any success. The revision petition was dismissed by the Government vide order dated 25/26.10.71 which runs as under: .........[vernacular ommited text]........... Ultimately, the petitioner presented this writ petition challenging the order terminating his services on the ground that the order is penal in character and tantamount!; to dismissal or removal of the petitioner from service The petitioner also complained against the order on the ground that he could be dismissed or removed only in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 7 of the Rajashan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1961. Since no enquiry as contemplated under Rule 7 was conducted before terminating his services, the order was liable to be quashed. The Panchayat Samiti, Baitu, has opposed the writ petition. In its reply, it has contended that the impugned order is not one of dismissal, but an order of discharge from service at the end of the probation period on the ground that the petitioners' work was found unsatisfactory during the probation period. It has further contended that there was no question of holding an enquiry in the matter as Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Panchavat Samitis and Zila Parishads Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1961 did not apply to a probationer whose services have been discharged at the end of the period of probation on the ground of un a if factory work. In its additional pleas, the Panchayat Samiti has pointed out certain instances which show that the work of the petition r during the period of probation was unsatisfactory. It was pleaded that the petitioner was asked to mend himself from time to time but with no result On 14 2 -69 the petitioner had quarreled with Rampratap, an Upper Division Clerk, in the Panchayat Samiti and had abused him. The Vikas Adhikari therefore called upon the petitioner to explain his conduct but the petitioner did not submit his explanation. Again, the petitioner did not put before the Standing Committee cases of those teachers whose probation period bad expired and whose confirmation had to be considered. The petitioner in this connection was warned by the letter dated 4 4 69 (Ex -A/2). The petitioner was also asked to furnish his explanation vide letter Ex.A/4 as he committed default in the preparation of the bill of Pitambardas teacher for his leave period from 1 -3 -67 to 21 -3 67. Again vide Ex.A/5 the petitioner was called upon to explain why he failed to send requisite information to Care Authorities in time. It was also pointed out that there are complaints against the petitioner from various teachers alleging harassment at the hands of the petitioner with ulterior motive. These facts have not bean controverted before me by the petitioner.
(3.) THE leraned Counsel for the petitioner has raised three grounds before me Firstly, that the petitioner completed probation period of two years on 3 7 69 and on its completion he automatically stood confirmed on the post and acquired an status of a confirmed or a permanent employee. Secondly, since the impugned orders dated 5 8 -69 and 6 -8 -69 visit the petitioner with evil consequences and cast an aspersion against his character and integrity, they must be considered to have passed by way of punishment, no matter whether the petitioner was a mere probationers Thirdly, that the services of the petitioner could not be terminated without following the procedure laid down under Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1961. Ground No. 1:;