Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Termination of Temporary Orderly; Holds Innocuous Discharge After Prior Proceedings Not Punitive

Case Name: Charan Dass (deceased) through LRs v. Punjab State and Another
Citation: RSA-2000-1993
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a Regular Second Appeal challenging termination of services of a temporary Orderly, holding that an innocuous order of discharge passed in accordance with the terms of appointment does not become punitive merely because disciplinary proceedings had earlier been initiated and subsequently set aside. The Court reiterated that a temporary employee has no vested right to hold the post and that termination simpliciter, without stigma or mala fides, is legally sustainable.

Summary: The suit was instituted seeking a declaration that the termination of the plaintiff’s services as an Orderly in the district judiciary was illegal, stigmatic, and punitive in nature. The plaintiff contended that although the impugned order stated that his services were no longer required, it was in substance a punishment flowing from earlier disciplinary proceedings which had been set aside on technical grounds. It was further argued that having rendered service for several years, the plaintiff could not be removed without notice or inquiry.

The defendants opposed the suit by asserting that the plaintiff was appointed purely on a temporary basis with an express condition permitting termination without assigning reasons. It was contended that the termination order was innocuous, did not cast any stigma, and was issued strictly in accordance with the appointment terms. It was also pointed out that no plea for regularisation had ever been raised and no allegation of mala fides was made against any authority.

The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the termination was simpliciter and contractual. The First Appellate Court affirmed the findings. In second appeal, the High Court examined the entire factual background, including the earlier disciplinary proceedings and their eventual quashing, and held that the subsequent termination could not be inferred to be punitive. The Court relied on consistent Supreme Court jurisprudence to reiterate that a preliminary inquiry or prior proceedings do not alter the character of a termination order which is otherwise innocuous and non-stigmatic.

The Court further held that long continuance in temporary service does not create a right to regularisation or protection against termination, particularly in the absence of pleadings or proof of parity with regular employees. Distinguishing the reliance placed on recent judgments concerning regularisation, the Court held that those decisions turned on materially different facts and could not be invoked in the present case.

Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by the trial court and the First Appellate Court were upheld, affirming the validity of the termination order.