Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1950 (HP)

Nand Lal Bhardwaj v. State of H. P.

2015-12-22

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 21st February, 2011, titled Nand Lal Bhardwaj vs. State of H.P. and others, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed, (for short, the impugned judgment). 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the writ petitioner (appellant herein) had questioned the termination order made by the respondents/State, on the grounds taken in the memo of writ petition. The petitioner was belonging to IRDP family and on that basis, had obtained government employment. It appears that thereafter, a complaint was made against the writ petitioner, which found favour with the respondents and the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order, dated 29th October, 2004 (Annexure A-1). 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the said order of termination Annexure A-1. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 5. At the very outset, we may record that the termination order Annexure A-1 had been made by the respondents without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. The writ Court has overlooked the said fact and has virtually traveled beyond the pleadings and held that the IRDP certificate was false, which was not the scope of the writ Court and the writ petition came to be dismissed. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner has questioned the impugned judgment by the medium of instant appeal, which came to be admitted and the appellant/writ petitioner was allowed to continue vide order 21st March, 2011. This Court also arrayed the Block Development Officer, Theog as respondent No.5 and directed the said respondent to file affidavit indicating whether the appellant was belonging to IRDP family during April, 2003. Respondent No.5 filed the affidavit in which he has stated as follows: “2. That in this behalf it is respectfully submitted that as per the verification of record of G.P. Kaleend as well as per entries of latest pariwar register, the family of appellant Shri Nand Lal Bhardwaj does not belong to IRDP family during April, 2003 having been shown separated during the year, 1997-98. However, Shir Udi Ram elder brother of Shri Nand Lal Bhardwaj has been shown to belong to IRDP family during the year, 2003 under IRDP No.03-0156.” 8. However, Shir Udi Ram elder brother of Shri Nand Lal Bhardwaj has been shown to belong to IRDP family during the year, 2003 under IRDP No.03-0156.” 8. From the affidavit filed by respondent No.5, it is clear that in one breath the said respondent has stated that the appellant did not belong to IRDP family in the year 2003, but, in case the affidavit is read as a whole, it can also be inferred that the appellant was belonging to IRDP family. 9. During the pendency of the instant Letters Patent Appeal, the writ petitioner had obtained information under the Right to Information Act and placed the documents on record. A perusal of the said documents prima facie shows that the petitioner belonged to the IRDP category at the relevant point of time. 10. In view of the above discussion, the termination order Annexure A-1 is not sustainable in the eyes of law keeping in view the fact that the termination order was made without affording opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and also taking in account the fact that the affidavit and the documents, prima facie, do disclose that the writ petitioner belonged to IRDP family at the relevant point of time. 11. Having said so, the impugned judgment is set aside and the termination order Annexure A-1 is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. 12. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending CMPs, if any.