Dismissed

Director General School Education and Another v. Pawan Kumar and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC27 May 2019LPA/864/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the intra-court appeal filed by the Director General against an order quashing the termination of an Education Provider. The single Judge correctly held that the employee did not simultaneously hold the post of Panch after resignation, which was the sole alleged ground for termination.

What did the court decide?

Single Judge's order quashing termination of respondent-employee remains in force.

Director General School Education… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

¶2

LPA No. 864 of 2019 ( O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 27. 05. 2019

¶3

The Di r ect or Gener al , School Educat i on, Punj ab- cum- St at e Pr oj ect and anot her

¶4

…. . Appel l ant s

¶5

ver sus

¶6

Pawan Kumar and ot her s

¶7

CORAM: - HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE KRI SHNA MURARI , CHI EF JUSTI CE HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE ARUN PALLI , JUDGE

¶8

Pr esent : Shr i Gagandeep Si ngh, Advocat e f or t he appel l ant s

¶9

KRI SHNA MURARI , CHI EF JUSTI CE : ( Or al )

¶10

Del ay of 129 days i n f i l i ng t he appeal i s condoned f or t he r easons st at ed i n CM- 2070- LPA- 2019 and t he same st ands di sposed of .

¶11

LPA- 864- 2019:

¶12

Thi s i nt r a- Cour t appeal under cl ause- X of t he Let t er s Pat ent i s di r ect ed agai nst t he j udgment and or der dat ed 15. 11. 2018 passed by l ear ned si ngl e Judge al l owi ng t he wr i t pet i t i on f i l ed by t he r espondent her ei n chal l engi ng hi s or der of t er mi nat i on f r om ser vi ce dat ed 08. 08. 2013.

¶13

Fact s i n br i ef can be r ecapi t ul at ed as under .

¶14

Respondent - pet i t i oner was appoi nt ed as Educat i on Pr ovi der on 01. 12. 2008. Bef or e bei ng sel ect ed and appoi nt ed on t he sai d post , he was an el ect ed Panch. On t he same day when appoi nt ment l et t er was i ssued, he submi t t ed hi s r esi gnat i on f r om t he post of Panch. Ther eaf t er , he cont i nued t o ser ve t he

¶15

PARKASH CHAND 2019.05.28 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

LPA- 864- 2019

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

appel l ant s as Educat i on Pr ovi der . However , vi de or der dat ed 08. 08. 2013 hi s ser vi ces wer e t er mi nat ed on t he gr ound t hat whi l e ser vi ng on t he post of Educat i on Pr ovi der , he was al so hol di ng t he post of Panch.

¶19

The l ear ned si ngl e Judge, af t er anal yzi ng t he pl eadi ngs of t he par t i es as al so t he evi dence br ought on r ecor d, has r et ur ned a f i ndi ng t hat t he r espondent - pet i t i oner , af t er bei ng sel ect ed f or appoi nt ment on t he post of Educat i on Pr ovi der , submi t t ed hi s r esi gnat i on on t he same day i . e. 01. 12. 2008 whi ch was accept ed by t he Sar panch on t he same day.

¶20

The l ear ned si ngl e Judge has al so t aken not e of t he f act t hat t her e was no compl ai nt or def i ci ency wi t h r egar d t o wor k and conduct of t he r espondent - pet i t i oner and t he i mpugned or der t er mi nat i ng t he ser vi ces was passed by t he appel l at e aut hor i t y and not by t he appoi nt i ng aut hor i t y. Lear ned counsel f or t he appel l ant submi t s t hat at t he r el evant t i me i t was t he appel l at e aut hor i t y, who was al so hol di ng t he char ge of appoi nt i ng aut hor i t y, and, t hus, t he or der was passed.

¶21

Anot her i mpor t ant aspect of t he mat t er i s t hat t her e i s no mat er i al avai l abl e on r ecor d t o even r emot el y i ndi cat e t hat af t er bei ng appoi nt ed as Educat i on Pr ovi der on 01. 12. 2008 and submi t t i ng hi s r esi gnat i on f r om t he post of Panch, t he r espondent - pet i t i oner ever per f or med any of t he dut i es or f unct i ons of t he post of Panch.

¶22

We see no good r eason f or t he appel l ant s t o have t er mi nat ed t he ser vi ces of t he r espondent - pet i t i oner af t er he has wor ked f or mor e t han 5 year s on t he gr ound t hat he was

¶23

PARKASH CHAND 2019.05.28 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

LPA- 864- 2019

¶25

- 3 -

¶26

si mul t aneousl y hol di ng t he post of Panch whi ch f act , as a mat t er of f act , i s not est abl i shed f r om t he r ecor d.

¶27

I n such vi ew of t he mat t er , we see no good gr ound t o t ake a vi ew di f f er ent f r om t he one t aken by t he l ear ned si ngl e Judge.

¶28

The appeal i s devoi d of any mer i t s and, accor di ngl y, st ands di smi ssed.

¶29

( KRI SHNA MURARI ) CHI EF JUSTI CE

¶30

( ARUN PALLI ) JUDGE

¶31

1. 2019 par kash

¶32

NOTE: Whet her speaki ng/ non- speaki ng: Speaki ng Whet her r epor t abl e: YES/ NO

¶33

PARKASH CHAND 2019.05.28 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Director General School Education and Another v. Pawan Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Director General School Education and Another v. Pawan Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahender Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Surender Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Vinod Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Shobha Ram Raturi Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Others

Prem Pal Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others

Gurdip Singh and Others Vs Municipal Corporation Faridabad and Others