25 years on, Punjab and Haryana High Court sets aside service termination order

Tribune News Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, June 19

More than 25 years after the services of a senior training and development officer were terminated, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the order after rapping the State of Haryana and other respondents for “blowing hot and cold at the same time”.

Ramesh Chand Sharma had to wait all these years for the “week” his case was slated to come up for hearing. His plea against the termination of his services was admitted on September 30, 1998, with a direction “to be heard in the week commencing January 18, 1999”. Since then, the case moved from one court to another and passed though the hands of almost 50 judges before being eventually listed before Justice Jaishree Thakur.

Taking up the matter, Justice Thakur observed that the petitioner joined Indian Sugar and General Engineering Corporation in February 1981 as labour welfare officer before being given the additional charge of safety officer vide letter dated June 13, 1995. He was also made training and safety officer vide office order dated June 19, 1995. The post was subsequently redesignated as senior training and development officer and another person was transferred as labour welfare officer. Subsequently, he was handed a termination letter.

His appeal was rejected on the ground that he accepted the training officer’s post in violation of the Punjab Welfare Officers Recruitment and Conditions Service Rules, 1952, which did not permit a welfare officer to perform any other duty or hold any other post without the government’s prior permission.

Justice Thakur said the respondents, at the same time, were arguing that the Rules would not be applicable as the petitioner had ceased to be labour welfare officer on his redesignation as senior training and development officer.

Justice Thakur observed that the Rules made it clear that punishment order would not be passed against a welfare officer without assigning reason on the basis of which the action was proposed to be taken and he would be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. But the impugned order dated September 11, 1996, did not spell the allegation or charge on the basis of which his services were terminated.

Varying stands

Justice Jaishree Thakur noticed that the respondents relied upon the rules to terminate the petitioner’s services as it did not permit a labour welfare officer to hold any other post. But they claimed the rules were not applicable on the ground that the petitioner was no more a welfare officer, when it came to the issue of assigning reason for termination and granting opportunity of hearing.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.