Judgment:
Rakesh Sharma, J.
1. Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for opposite parties.
2. Since the common question of law is involved in these writ petitions, the same are being disposed off by a common judgment,
3. Under challenge are several orders Issued against the petitioners, terminating their temporary services from the post of Junior Clerks who were working in Regional District Offices and Audit Offices of Cooperative Societies and Panchayats in U.P. The orders of termination have been issued by the Regional Audit Officers, Cooperative Societies and Panchayats in compliance of the directions issued by the Chief Audit Officer, Cooperative Societies and Panchayats, U.P., Station Road, Lucknow vide order dated 12.8.1994. These orders of termination which were issued against the petitioners, terminating their services have been assailed in this bunch of writ petitions.
4. This Court while entertaining the writ petitions on 27.9.1994 had been pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order, dated 12.8.1994 passed by the Chief Audit Officer and Panchayats, U.P., directing the subordinate officers to terminate the services of temporary employees, petitioners. The operation of the resultant order of termination had been stayed by this Court and all the petitioners have continued in their services who were appointed between July-August, 1993 in the various regional offices of above mentioned department in U.P. All the petitioners are still in service and are being paid salary.
5. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it emerges that several vacancies, posts of Junior Clerks were lying vacant in the offices of Regional Audit Officers, Cooperative Societies and Panchayats in various regions of U.P. as well as in the offices of District Audit Officers, On the direction issued by the Chief Audit Officer, Cooperative Societies and Panchayats, U.P. to fill up the posts, the Regional Audit Officers had made appointments on the post of Junior Clerks. Thus the petitioners were appointed as Junior Clerks in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 in stopgap/ad hoc arrangement during the period from July-August, 1993 to 18.10:1993.
6. The Regional Audit Officer is the appointing authority for the post of Junior Clerks in the regional offices. It is noteworthy that such appointments are made under Para-140, Part-I, Vol. 5 of Financial Handbook. The Para-140 provides that in case the departments or establishments are divided into grades, there is no objection to an excess appointment being made in lower grade against a vacancy lying unfilled in a higher grade. Para 140 further provides that this liberty must however not be used for the purpose of increasing numerical strength of an office. For each vacancy in higher grade only one extra appointment in a lower grade is admissible. Both the parties have submitted that posts of senior and junior clerks were lying unfilled in the regional offices. The Regional Audit Officers were competent to make temporary ad hoc/stopgap arrangement on the post of Junior Clerks. All the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc/stopgap temporary arrangement in view of the administrative exigencies prevailing in the regional offices/ district offices.
7. The record further reveals that some complaints were made by Sri Putti Lal and Devendra Asthana against these appointments. Directions were issued by the Minister and the Secretary of the concerned department to cancel these appointments and terminate the services of the petitioners. On the basis of these complaints, the services of the petitioners were terminated in compliance of the directions, dictated by the Chief Audit Officer on 12.8.1994. The petitioners have laid much stress on the fact that their appointments were cancelled on the ground of some complaints, without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The principles of natural justice have been violated.
8. The petitioners' case is squarely covered by the several decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Court. Similar controversy had arisen before a Division Bench of this Court and this Court, vide judgment and order passed in Govind Saran Dwivedi v. Union of India through the Director General Posts and Telegraph, New Delhi and Ors., 1984 (2) LCD 243, has held that once an employee had been appointed on a post, one had acquired a right to continue in the services. The termination by cancellation of appointments without giving opportunity of hearing was violative of principles of natural justice and as such the order is null and void. The cancellation of appointment of temporary employment not being terminated in accordance with terms and conditions of appointment, the principles of natural justice must be followed. This Division Bench's judgment squarely covers the controversy raised in these petitions.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his submissions :
1. Shrawan Kumar Jha and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1991 Supp (1) SCC 330.
2. Purshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, : (1958)ILLJ544SC .
3. S.L. Kapoor v. Jag Mohan and Ors., : [1981]1SCR746 .
4. Basudeo Tewari v. Sido Kanhu University, : (1999)ILLJ200SC .
5. Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries and Ors., : (1999)ILLJ432SC .
6. Bachan Lal v. District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bahraich and Anr., 1989 (7) LCD 481.
7. V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab and Ors., : (2000)ILLJ1099SC .
10. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that, one Sri A.C. Dubey, Chief Audit Officer had illegally permitted the Regional Audit Officers to make appointments on the posts of Junior Clerks. This officer was put under suspension and a departmental inquiry was held against him. When this fact was brought to the notice, directions were issued to the Regional Audit Officers to terminate the services of the petitioners. The appointments were made illegally, irregularly and invalidly. The petitioners had no right to continue on these posts. Moreover, the detailed procedure for making appointments was also not followed before making appointments on the said posts.
11. I have considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel and have also perused the case laws cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
12. It is amply clear from the record that the appointing authority did not apply its own mind to the facts of the case and the orders of termination were issued under the dictation of the Chief Audit Officer. It was a case of non-application of mind. The posts, vacancies were available. The petitioners' services were required and as such the appointing authority had made appointments under Para 140 as contained in Part 1, Vol. 5 of the Financial Handbook. The legal provision of Para 140 is quoted below :
'140. The head of an office is not at liberty to readjust the pay and allowances of Government servant by giving one person more and another less than the sanctioned pay of his post, nor may be disturbed the pay of an absentee otherwise than as provided in the Fundamental Rules. But in the case of departments or establishments divided into grades there is no objection to an excess appointment being made in a lower grade against a vacancy left unfilled in a higher grade. This liberty must, however, not be used for the purpose of increasing the numerical strength of an office. For each vacancy in higher grade, only one extra appointment in a lower grade is admissible.
Note: This rule is applicable to ministerial establishments also.'
13. Several posts were lying vacant and administrative exigencies did require for engagement of persons in the ministerial establishment of the offices. Moreover, this was a temporary / ad hoc and stopgap arrangement. There were no compelling administrative exigencies or reasons to terminate the ad hoc services of the petitioners.
14. No one has pleaded this case in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties. As far as the cancellation of appointments is concerned, admittedly, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners before cancelling the orders of appointment which had already been implemented. The petitioners had assumed charge of the posts and they were working. The principles of natural justice have been violated as the appointments were cancelled without issuing show cause notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. There appears to be some truth in the averments made by the petitioners that appointment orders were cancelled on some complaints and under political pressure and irrelevant consideration. The petitioners could have been afforded opportunity of hearing to enable them to meet the complaints or their versions could have been considered by the Chief Audit Officer. Even no report from regional offices was called for before issuing directions to cancel the appointments of the petitioners.
15. In view of above, the order issued by the Chief Audit Officer, Cooperative Societies and Panchayats, U.P. Lucknow dated 12.8.1994 and consequential orders of termination dated 17.8.1994, issued by the Regional Audit Officers, impugned in these writ petitions are illegal, invalid and violative of principles of natural justice.
16. The writ petitions are allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the above mentioned order dated 12.8.1994 and consequential order of termination.