Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 208 (DEL)

DHYAN SFNGH v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

1996-02-27

M.K.SHARMA

body1996
M. K. SHARMA ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the action of the respondents in treating the services of the petitioner as terminated. The petitioner in the writ petition has annexed a copy of the office order dated 29. 8. 1977 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (SS) of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi intimating that the Commissioner. MCD vide his order dated 5. 8. 1977 had terminated with immediate effect the probation of the petitioner who was appointed as Senior School Inspector w. e. f. 1. 9. 1975. The petitioner in the writ petition has challenged the validity of the aforesaid order on the ground that the service of the petitioner was unlawfully terminated without their being any order passed to that effect by the competent authority. ( 2 ) THE petitioner joined sen ice as a Post Graduate Teacher under Delhi Administration and was later on confirmed in that post. On 21. 7. 1973 the Union Public Service Commission issued an advertisement for filling up two posts of Senior School Inspectors under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In response to the application filed by the petitioner, the petitioner was called for the interview and being selected therein his name was recommended by the Union Public Service Commission for such appointment. ( 3 ) ON the aforesaid recommendation of the Union Public Service Commission and after approval of the Commissioner the petitioner was appointed as a Senior School Inspector (General) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide office order dated 13 5. 1975. In the aforesaid order of appointment it w as stipulated that the appointment of the petitioner would be on a probation of two years at the first instance. ( 4 ) ON being so appointed the petitioner joined the post. It is stated by the petitioner that his service throughout the period of his probation was satisfactory and he was also given the current duty charge of the higher post of Assistant Education Officer. Subsequently however, the probation of the petitioner came to be terminated by the order of the Commissioner by his order dated 5. 8. 1977 which is being challenged in this writ petition. ( 5 ) MR. S. C. GUPTA. Subsequently however, the probation of the petitioner came to be terminated by the order of the Commissioner by his order dated 5. 8. 1977 which is being challenged in this writ petition. ( 5 ) MR. S. C. GUPTA. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before me that the aforesaid order terminating the probation of the petitioner was not issued by the competent authority as the Commissioner w ho had issued the impugned order could not have exercised the powers of the Corporation. According to him the appointing authority of the petitioner was the Corporation and not the Commissioner and therefore, the Commissioner has no power and jurisdiction to terminate the probation of the petitioner under any circumstances. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that when the probation of the petitioner was sought to be terminated by the Commissioner it would actually mean that he was confirmed in the post of Senior School Inspector inasmuch as his sendees were not terminated by the order of the Commissioner and therefore, the action on the part of the respondent in discharging the petitioner from service was arbitrary and illegal. ( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having carefully perused the records available before me, I find that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Senior School Inspector by the Commissioner. At the time when the petitioner was appointed to the aforesaid post on 1. 9. 1975 his initial pay was Rs. 425. 00 in the usual pay scale of Rs. 425-680. Under the provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act as originally enacted the appointing authority for the posts carrying minimum monthly salary of Rs. 350. 00 or more was vested in the Corporation but by Amending Act 55 of 1974 which came into force on 10. 1. 1975 the power to appoint persons in the post carrying monthly salary below Rs. 700. 00 was vested in the Commissioner. As the petitioner was appointed to the post of Senior School Inspector on 1. 9. 1975 at the initial pay of Rs. 425. 00 it is apparent that the power to appoint the petitioner was vested in the Commissioner himself. It was therefore, not necessary for the Commissioner to exercise the powers of the Corporation for appointing the petitioner to the post of Senior School Inspector. 9. 1975 at the initial pay of Rs. 425. 00 it is apparent that the power to appoint the petitioner was vested in the Commissioner himself. It was therefore, not necessary for the Commissioner to exercise the powers of the Corporation for appointing the petitioner to the post of Senior School Inspector. Under such circumstances the order terminating the services of the petitioner issued by the Commissioner cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Since the Commissioner had the power to appoint the petitioner on the relevant date when he was appointed to the post of Senior School Inspector he also possessed the right to terminate the services of the petitioner and on that count no illegality was committed by the Commissioner when he terminated the services of the petitioner. ( 7 ) COMING to the next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in terms of the appointment order the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of 2 years from the date he joined the sen ice w. e. f. 1. 7 1975. From the order dated 29. 8. 1977 it is found that the probation of the petitioner was terminated under the order of the Commissioner dated 5. 8. 1977 i. e. well within the period of 2 years. Now the only question that is left to be determined is whether the order terminating the probation would mean confirmation in the service or termination from the service. Although the aforesaid order dated 29. 8. 1977 appears to be not happily worded, from the statement made in the counter affidavit it is apparent that in fact. the sen ices of the petitioner were terminated and he stood relieved from the service w. e. f. 30. 8 1977. It further appears from the record that after the petitioner was released from sen ice he was taken back by Delhi Administration and was currently posted as Vice Principal of the Government Senior Secondary School in Delhi. Therefore, for all intent and purposes the aforesaid order terminating the probation of the petitioner could lead to one and only conclusion that the services of the petitioner were terminated. Therefore, for all intent and purposes the aforesaid order terminating the probation of the petitioner could lead to one and only conclusion that the services of the petitioner were terminated. The aforesaid action of terminating the services of the petitioner was taken within the probation period of 2 years which was fixed under his appointment order and thus there is no infirmity in taking the aforesaid action and also in issuing the aforesaid order terminating the services of the petitioner. ( 8 ) IN the result this writ petition has no merit and is dismissed accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.