Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 4 May, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2006)143PLR503
Author: M.M.S. Bedi
Bench: M.M.S. Bedi
JUDGMENT M.M.S. Bedi, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge order dated 6.3.2002 (Annexure P-8) declining his request for regularisation of his services and order dated 7.2.2004 (Annexure P-18) passed by respondent No. 2 terminating his services on the ground that he had got his job on the basis of driving licence which on verification and inquiry was found to be forged. The petitioner was engaged as a Driver in the respondent-department on 15.5.1992. His services were terminated on 24.9.1993 without assigning any reason. On 24.7.1995 he obtained a driving licence from Licencing Authority, Kama) on the ground that his earlier licence issued by the Licencing Authority, Dehradun was misplaced. Vide Award dated 27.8.1996 (Annexure P-I) Labour Court, Panipat had set aside the termination order passed against the petitioner and ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. On the basis of the Government Instructions dated 7.3.1996 (Annexure P-2) the petitioner sought regularisation of his services having completed 5 years of service on 31.3.1996 and on the basis of instructions dated 18.3.1996 (Annexure P-3) reducing the requisite service to 3 years from 5 years.
2. Vide letter dated 22.5.1997 (Annexure P-4) respondent No. 2 sent a request for verification of the driving licence of the petitioner to the Licencing Officer, M.V. Department, Dehradun. The petitioner got an endorsement on his driving licence to driving heavy motor vehicle from Licencing Authority, Ambala and he was reinstated in service on the basis of the said driving licence on 6.6.1997. C.W.P. No. 3603 of 1999 was filed In March 1999 by the petitioner seeking regularisation of his services. Vide memo dated 26.5.1999 (Annexure P-5) a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why his services be not dispensed with for having produced a forged driving licence. The petitioner was permitted to file a reply (Annexure P-6). The writ petition for regularisation was disposed of on 16.10.2001 (Annexure P-7) requiring the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation accordance with law subject to the decision that may be taken on the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. Vide impugned order dated 6.3.2002 (Annexure P-8), respondent No. 2 declined to regularise the services of the petitioner as he was not having a valid driving licence at the time of joining the service. The petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 9850 of 2003 challenging order dated 6.3.2002 (Annexure P-8). During the pendency of the above said writ petition, respondent No. 2 vide order dated 15.12.2003 (Annexure P-9) held the services of the petitioner rendered on the basis of invalid driving licence as null and void. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation against order dated 15.12.2003 (Annexure P-9). Sub Divisional Officer, Respondent No. 3 got the petitioner medically examined and got verified the new driving licence in order to regularise his services. A show cause notice dated 24.11.2004 (Annexure P-16) was issued to the petitioner as to why his services be not terminated for getting the job on the basis of invalid licence. The petitioner was permitted to file reply dated 8.12.2004 (Annexure P-17) to the show cause notice. Vide order dated 7.2.2005 (Annexure P-18) the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner withdrew his earlier writ petition viz. C.W.P. No. 9850 of 2003 claiming regularization with liberty to file a fresh one.
3. He has filed the present writ petition challenging his termination order dated 7.2.2005 (Annexure P-18) and order dated 6.3.2002 (Annexure P-8) by virtue of which respondent No. 3 had declined to regularise his services. So far as the claim of the petitioner for regularisation is concerned, on the basis of his daily wage service, the matter is fully covered by the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors. J.T. 2006(4) S.C. 420 and, therefore, he is not entitled to claim regularisation of his service on daily wage basis. So far as the termination of the services of the petitioner on the basis of an invalid driving licence is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was reinstated in service on 6.6.1993 after furnishing a new driving licence, which was got verified by respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 9.7.2004 (Annexure P-13) and it was found to be genuine as the licence had been renewed and the services of the petitioner cannot be terminated on the ground that original driving licence was forged.
4. We have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The services of the petitioner have been terminated after providing him an adequate opportunity of hearing. He was issued a show cause notice dated 26.5.1999 (Annexure P-5) as to why his services should not be dispensed with as he had submitted a forged driving licence at the time of joining of service as a Driver and for having cheated the department. The driving licence had been got verified by respondent No. 2 and a detailed inquiry was held to find out whether the driving licence on the basis of which the petitioner had got the job was genuine or not. The petitioner had attended the inquiry and it was found that the driving licence was forged. The punishing authority had passed the order holding that the services rendered by the petitioner are null and void. The higher authorities of the department found on observation that the punishment inflicted on the petitioner was not in accordance with the rules/regulations and as such it requires reconsideration for recalling/cancelling the punishment order and issuing a fresh order. The matter was reconsidered and the punishment inflicted on the driver was found to be inadequate and in proportion to the fraud committed by him. Thereafter, the punishment order was withdrawn and the petitioner was again served upon with a show cause notice and he was permitted to file reply. After considering the reply and giving him an adequate opportunity of hearing again, a conclusion was arrived at that the driving licence produced by him at the initial stage was forged. The punishing authority vide order dated 7.2.2005 (Annexure P-18) after, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case arrived at a conclusion that the validity of the driving licence is essential qualification for the post of a Driver, as such the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Driver on daily wages was ab initio illegal, null and void. A driver, who enters into service on the basis of a fabricated and forged driving licence, which is essential qualification for a driver is not entitled to be retained in service. No ambiguity could be pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner in the procedure adopted. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner being a daily wager is neither entitled to regularisation in view of Uma Devi's case (supra) nor it was incumbent upon the respondents to hold a departmental inquiry before imposing punishment upon the petitioner but keeping in view the rules of natural justice, the petitioner has been given adequate opportunity of hearing, which could not be utilised by the petitioner to establish that the driving licence No. 17372/R produced by him issued by the Licencing Authority, Dehradun was a genuine document.
5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.