2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

This judgment shall simultaneously dispose of two appeals i.e. Appeal No.841 of 2003 and Appeal No.842 of 2003, since common facts and common questions of law are involved in both appeals.

2. As per relevant facts of the case, the appellants were appointed as dispensers in the Health Department, District Narowal, against leave vacancies through orders dated 20‑11‑1989 and 6‑2‑1988 respectively, of course under the orders of the competent authority. They kept serving as such when they were served with a show‑cause notice dated 13‑8‑2001 on the ground that their appointments were against leave vacancy and their services were, therefore, liable to termination. Consequently, the appellants were removed from service through order dated 22‑12‑2001. The appellants filed departmental appeals on 7‑1‑2002 and 8‑1‑2002 on which order of removal from service was set aside and regular inquiry was ordered on 1‑2‑2002 and 21‑2‑2002. However, this inquiry was not held and through orders dated 30‑1‑2003 the appellants were given the ultimatum to get their services regularized within 90 days, failing in which they will be considered out of service w.e.f. 1‑5‑2003. The appellants feeling aggrieved filed representations on 8‑2‑2003, but the same were rejected on 24‑4‑2003 and 5‑4‑2003 hence the present appeals in this Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants maintains that the appellants had continuously remained in service even against leave vacancies for long time and they could not, therefore, be thrown out of service arbitrarily after 14/15 years. It is also maintained that there was no fault on the part of the appellants if regularization of their appointments was not made by the competent authority according to law. It is also stated that the authority had acted inconsistently and illegally, by once ordering regular inquiry and thereafter by dispensing with the services of the appellants without any inquiry on short notice. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that selection of the appellants was made on merits and they continued to perform duties to the satisfaction of their superiors through out and, therefore, they could not be removed from service arbitrarily without following the procedure laid down under the rules.

4. The appeals are opposed by the respondents through their written objections. It is maintained by learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents that the appellants were actually appointed against temporary vacancies and they were never made regular or permanent through out and, therefore, they could not claim to continue in service till the age of superannuation. It is also maintained that an audit objection, as also raised against the continuous appointment of the appellants against leave vacancy. It is further maintained by learned District Attorney that no doubt, orders of removal from service were first set aside, but the authority was then competent to order their removal from service once again.

5. I have considered the contentions from both sides and also perused the relevant record. I agree with tile learned counsel for the appellant that the authority did not act in accordance with law by first ordering an inquiry and thereafter removing the appellants from service once again under the impugned orders. There is no doubt that the appellants were appointed against leave vacancies and their services were liable to termination, but in the case action should have been taken at the appropriate time after the expiry of leave period. As the appellants kept serving for 14/15 years they could not be removed from service arbitrarily subsequently. On the other hand, the fact .is also established that the appellants had concealed the fact which they should have brought to the notice of the concerned authority that their appointments were temporary and against leave vacancy, so that at the appropriate time, action would have been taken to get their appointments regularized. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, the appeals are partly allowed to the extent that the punishment of removal from service shall stand converted into that of compulsory retirement w.e.f. the date impugned orders were passed. H.B.T./3/PST Appeal partly allowed.