IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1449/2006 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5804/1998 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ms. Kanchan Lata) Date of Judgment ::: 12th May, 2010 Hon'ble The Chief Justice Mr. Jagdish Bhalla Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.N. Bhandari Mr. S.S.Hasan, for the appellants. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, for the respondent. By the Court:
By this appeal, a challenge has been made to the order dated 14.09.2006 whereby the writ petition preferred by non-appellant was allowed.
It is a case where non-appellant was appointed on the post of Assistant Sub-inspector vide order passed in the month of December, 1996. She joined the services on 13.01.1997. The appointment of non-appellant was temporary in nature and there was further condition for passing of typing test. The typing test was held, wherein petitioner-non-appellant was declared pass and accordingly, she was allowed the annual grade increment. The non-appellant’s service was later on terminated vide order dated 25.08.1998. A challenge to the order of termination was made mainly on the ground that termination was made without holding an enquiry and even in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and thereby a direction was given for reinstatement of non-appellant with denial of wages till the date of passing of the impugned order by the learned Single Judge.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that nature of appointment being temporary, in view of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, the petitioner-non-appellant was terminated from service. It is otherwise a fact that she appeared in the typing test and was declared successful therein. Later on, when complaint was received regarding use of unfair means in the typing test, to provide an opportunity, the non-appellant was asked to appear in the typing test. Pursuant to the order passed, the non-appellant appeared in the typing test but could not achieve the required speed and thus, declared fail. In view of aforesaid, the order of termination simplicitor was passed as it was not based on any allegation, still learned Single Judge interfered in the order, which deserves to be set aside.
Learned counsel appearing for the non-appellant submits that when non-appellant was declared pass in the typing test, then any adverse order should have proceeded with by following principles of natural justice, however, in this case, the same have been violated, thus the learned Single Judge rightly interfered in the order.
We have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
Perusal of the order of appointment shows that petitioner-non-appellant was appointed purely on temporary basis and there was a condition to pass out the typing test. It is not in dispute that non-appellant appeared in the typing test and was declared pass. On a complaint received for use of unfair means, the appellant had not passed the order of termination straightaway, rather an opportunity was provided to the non-appellant for typing test. Pursuant to the opportunity given, non-appellant appeared in the typing test, which fact is also not in dispute. In the second typing test, non-appellant could not achieve the required speed and thus, declared fail. Looking to the aforesaid facts, it becomes clear that on receipt of complaint, straightaway adverse order was not passed against the non-appellant rather to provide an opportunity she was called for the typing test and when the typing test was held again, result shows that non-appellant was not in position to achieve the required speed of typing to continue in service. In view of aforesaid, there was a justification to discontinue the non-appellant by invoking Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service Rules and if the order of termination is looked into then it shows that it was termination simplicitor, thus it cannot be said that the order of termination was based on use of unfair means.
In view of aforesaid, we find that action of respondent is in consonance with the Rules, as such the order dated 14.09.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be allowed to stand.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 14.09.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Cost is made easy.
(M.N. Bhandari), J. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. Item No.20 Preety/Jr.P.A.