CWP-7566-2013 (O&M) 1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 207 CWP-7566-2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.08.2026 Yogesh Kumar ...Pe33oner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Veer Chauhan, Advocate for the pe oner. Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, D.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Sandeep Berwal, Advocate for respondent No.6. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Pe on under Ar cle 226 of the Cons tu on of India has been .led by the pe oner for the issuance of a writ in the nature of cer orari to quash the Termina on Order dated 25.01.2013 (Annexure P-10) and the prayer that pe oner be reinstated with all consequen al bene.ts. 2. It is inter alia submi9ed by learned Senior Counsel for the pe oner that pe oner was previously appointed as Data Entry Operator in the respondent-Department on 12.12.2007. Pe oner had worked on the said post ll 19.08.2008. Vide order dated 18.08.2008 (Annexure P-1), pe oner was appointed as Accounts Assistant and was posted at Kaithal. Ld. Senior Counsel refers to the Experience Cer .cates DIVYANSHI 2026.08.14 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7566-2013 (O&M) 2 of 7 (Annexures P-2 to P-8) awarded to the pe oner by the Addi onal Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal from 26.06.2009 upto 14.12.2012 respec vely, to submit that in all the said Cer .cates, work and conduct of the pe oner has been found to be exemplary. 3. It is submi9ed that therea@er, the pe oner was transferred and posted as Accounts Assistant at Guhla Block since 22.11.2012. Learned Senior Counsel contends that immediately upon his pos ng at Guhla, Performance Report dated 10.01.2013 (Annexure P-9) was given by the Block Development and Panchayat OBcer/BDPO Guhla; wherein it was men oned that pe oner is neither a9ending oBce on right me nor taking interest in work. It is submi9ed that based on the said Report, services of the pe oner came to be terminated vide impugned order dated 25.01.2013 (Annexure P-10). 4. Learned Senior Counsel contends that the en re exercise of termina on of the pe oner was undergone at the behest of Addi onal Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal, who was desirous of pos ng respondent No.6, namely, Sh. Yashpal Singh in place of the pe oner. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel refers to the averments made in para 2 of the short replica on dated 15.05.2015 .led by the pe oner to be eFect that the “…… Actual reason of procuring the report (P-9) against the peoner was that the Addional Deputy Commissioner was interested to appoint one Mr. Yashpal who was in the waing list of the selecon made in the year 2012 and to accommodate said Yashpal, the Addional Deputy Commissioner called the report from the BDPO, Pundri by hand vide le)er DIVYANSHI 2026.08.14 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7566-2013 (O&M) 3 of 7 dated 9296-9301 dated 10.1.2013 and the BDPO has submi)ed the report (P-9) on the same date by le)er no. Spl1. Dated 10.1.2013 and by relieving the peoner the said Yashpal was joined at the place on the peoner on the same date. So, this clearly demonstrate the intenon to relieve the peoner to accommodate one Yashpal who was in the waing list of Selecon held in the year 2012. The respondents have not even disputed that no explanaon of the peoner was obtained and no opportunity of any kind was granted to the peoner before passing the impugned order (Annexure P-10).” 5. It is submi9ed that it is for this reason that Report dated 10.01.2013 (Annexure P-9) was procured by the concerned Addi onal Deputy Commissioner and pe oner was ousted vide impugned order of Termina on dated 25.01.2013 (Annexure P-10); wherea@er Sh. Yashpal Singh/respondent no.6 herein, was brought in place of the pe oner. 6. Learned Senior Counsel contends that as per the relevant Govt. Instruc ons, it is the general system and prac ce that con.den al report of subordinate oBcer was to be given by an oBcer who has seen the performance of that employee for at least 3 months. It is submi9ed that in the present case, BDPO, namely, Sh. Suraj Bhan who had submi9ed adverse Report dated 10.01.2013 (Annexure P-9) had seen the work of the pe oner only for 23 days, as he had been posted as BDPO at Guhla Block only on 18.12.2012. It is contended that as such, as per the relevant Instruc ons, the concerned BDPO was not competent to comment on the work and conduct of the pe oner. DIVYANSHI 2026.08.14 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7566-2013 (O&M) 4 of 7 7. It is further submi9ed that even otherwise, the report dated 10.1.2013 is incorrect as a perusal of the a9endance of the pe oner from 01.12.2012 to 31.12.2012 (Annexure P-11) and 01.01.2013 to 28.01.2013 (Annexure P-12) would clearly show that pe oner is a9ending his du es and he has never been shown absent. 8. It is also submi9ed that persons junior to the pe oner have been retained in service; whereas services of the pe oner have been arbitrarily terminated. By way of example, learned Senior counsel refers to case of one Sh. Harish Tagra who was junior to the pe oner and who had been issued many warnings many mes regarding various lapses. It is contended that yet, said Mr. Harish Tagra has been retained in service; whereas pe oner has been terminated. 9. It is lastly, submi9ed that termina on of the pe oner is illegal in terms of Sec on 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 10. He accordingly prays that the present Writ Pe on be allowed; and the impugned order of Termina on dated 25.01.2013 (Annexure P-10) be set aside. 11. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the pe oner and points out that the pe oner was a contractual employee. As such, pe oner cannot seek protec on of the Govt. Instruc ons, as per which, it is required that the con.den al report should be wri9en by a superior oBcer a@er seeing the performance of the employee for at least 3 months. It is submi9ed that pe oner was not willing to be shi@ed to Guhla Block. So, a@er his DIVYANSHI 2026.08.14 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7566-2013 (O&M) 5 of 7 transfer, he did not take interest in the daily work and also came late to oBce and showed insubordina on and became slow worker in order to be shi@ed in Kaithal. It was in this background that the Report dated 10.01.2013 (Annexure P-9) came to be submi9ed; wherein it is categorically men oned that pe oner “neither a)ends o3ce on right me nor taking interest in work.” Further this led to passing of the impugned order dated 25.01.2013 at which me, pe oner was given remunera on equal to 15 days’ pay as per Clause 10 of the Agreement dated 01.10.2012 (Annexure R-1). 12. It is pointed out that even in the impugned order dated 25.01.2013 (Annexure P-10), it is recorded that services of the pe oner have been terminated due to his indiscipline and poor performance. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Pe on. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 has also opposed conten ons of the pe oner by submiMng that appointment of respondent No.6 has no connec on with the appointment of the pe oner. It is pointed out that respondent No.6 was appointed in pursuance to a separate Adver sement of 2012 at which point, pe oner was already working. As such, pe oner has not approached this Court with clean hands. He accordingly prays that the present Writ Pe on be dismissed with exemplary costs. 14. No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the par es. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case .le in detail. I .nd no merit in the submissions of the pe oner. DIVYANSHI 2026.08.14 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7566-2013 (O&M) 6 of 7 15. Succinctly put, the case of the pe oner is that pe oner was posted at Guhla Block and adverse Report dated 10.01.2013 (Anexure P-9) was given by the BDPO, Guhla Block at the behest of the Addi onal Deputy Commissioner, “who was was interested to appoint one Mr. Yashpal who was in the waing list of the selecon made in the year 2012 and to accommodate said Yashpal, the Addional Deputy Commissioner called the report from the BDPO, Pundri by hand vide le)er dated 9296- 9301 dated 10.1.2013 and the BDPO has submi)ed the report (P-9) on the same date by le)er no. Spl1. Dated 10.1.2013 and by relieving the peoner the said Yashpal was joined at the place on the peoner on the same date. So this clearly demonstrate the intenon to relieve the peoner to accommodate one Yashpal who was in the waing list of Selecon held in the year 2012.” 16. However, a perusal of the record shows that there is no truth whatsoever to the said scurrilous allega ons made by the pe oner. Respondent No. 6 has clearly stated in his reply dated 03.03.2025 that the respondent No.6 had been appointed against the post of Accounts Assistant which was adver sed vide Adver sement dated 16.03.2012 (Annexure R-6/1). The last date for submission of applica on form was 31.03.2012. The respondent No.6 had applied for the said post of Accounts Assistant; and a@er going through the wri9en examina on and interview, he has secured 1st posi on as per Result dated 26.11.2012 (Annexure R-6/2); and was posted and given appointment at Guhla Block of District Kaithal vide Appointment Le9er dated 04.02.2013 (Annexure R- DIVYANSHI 2026.08.14 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7566-2013 (O&M) 7 of 7 6/3). Clearly therefore, respondent No.6 has been appointed on a post which was independently adver sed; and the same has no connec on with the appointment/pos ng/transfer of the pe oner. It is also evident from the above that pe oner was already working on the said post on 16.03.2012 at the me of adver sement. However, none of these facts have been disclosed in the writ pe on. Rather, baseless allega ons to the contrary have been made. 17. Learned Senior Counsel for the pe oner is also unable to refute the fact that pe oner is a contractual employee and, thus, bene.ts of cited Govt. Instruc ons are not applicable. Pe oner has been unable to refute asser ons made in the impugned order to the eFect that pe oner was terminated due to his “indiscipline a5tude and poor performance.” 18. Keeping in view the above posi on, the present Writ Pe on stands dismissed. 19. Pending applica on(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 12.08.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.08.14 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document