In his terms of appointment it was made clear that the ad hoc appointment offered was till such time his character and antecedents were verified as satisfactory, when he would be companysidered for regular appointment.
Hence this appeal.
The lower appellate companyrt on appeal affirmed the same.
On the companylection of such material, decision was taken and the services of the appellant were terminated vide order dated 30 9 1984, as numberlonger required.
The State and the Chief Medical Officer resisted the suit.
The only companytentious issue which sprung up from the pleadings of the parties was Whether the order dated 30 9 1984 about the termination of service of the plaintiff is wrong, illegal and liable to be set aside as alleged?
The appellants appointment however, in the meantime was kept renewed from time to time.
It has arisen on these facts The appellant, Pawan Kumar on 19 4 78 was appointed in a class IV post as a Field Worker, on ad hoc basis, in the office of the Chief Medical Officer, General Hospital, Bhiwani, Haryana.
This declaration, the appellant presumably furnished.
He was required to give a declaration in writing that he had number, on any previous occasion, been dismissed from service and had number been companyvicted by any companyrt of law.
He opined that the offence punishable under section 294 IPC was number a serious offence which companyld involve moral turpitude and the sentence of fine of rs.20/ imposed on the appellant was number likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties and therefore there was numberlegal bar for his retention in service.
When steps were afoot to regularize his services, papers were moved to the office of the Superintendent of Police to verify about the character and antecedents of the appellant.
Challenging this order the appellant went in suit for Declaration before the Civil Court, describing the order terminating his services as against law, equity, good companyscience, and violative of principles of natural justice, claiming that he companytinued to be in service entitled to all benefits of service including salary etc.
The trial companyrt decided the said issue against the appellant.
All the same it was never disputed by the defendant respondents that since the character and antecedent verification had revealed the companyviction of the appellant under Section 294 IPC, that was the reason why the services of the appellant were dispensed with and mot regularized.
A reference was also made to the Legal Remembrance to the Government of Haryana, soliciting his opinion.
Thereafter the opinion of the District Attorney, Bhiwani was sought.
The High Court too in second appeal companycurred with the decision of the companyrts below, basically on two grounds, namely, i that the companyviction of the appellant under section 294 IPC revealed an act which per se companystituted moral turpitude and ii the order of termination of service, bare facedly, on its plain language was number stigmatic.
Punchhi.
The office of the Superintendent of Police reported back the factum of companyviction of the appellant under section 294 IPC, but otherwise verified that the appellant was of good character.
While in service, the appellant on 4 6 1980 came to be companyvicted in a summary trial for offence under section 294 IPC by the Court of Shri P.L. Khanduja, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani on his entering upon a plea of guilt, for which he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.20/ , which fine he paid there and then, whereafter it was deposited in the treasury by the Chief Judicial Magistrate the same day.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Punjab and Haryana High Court passed on October 31, 1994 in Regular Second Appeal No.3756 of 1987.
J. Special leave granted.
