Regularization Obtained By Misrepresenting Facts Cannot Be Sustained; SC Upholds Termination Of A 'Chowkidar' [Read Judgment]
"An order of regularization obtained by misrepresenting facts, or by playing a fraud upon the competent authority, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law."
Holding that the appointment of a Chowkidar on regular basis was invalid, the Supreme Court observed an order of regularization obtained by misrepresenting facts, or by playing a fraud upon the competent authority, cannot be sustained.
Karamjit Singh was appointed as a Chowkidar on daily wages by the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority on 1st December 1995. His name was on the muster rolls till 31.03.1997. The Government of Punjab revised the Policy for regularization of work-charged / daily wage and other categories of employees who had completed 3 years of service. Even though he had only worked for a few months, Singh's name got into the list and was regularized w.e.f. 06.11.2001.
Some other employees challenged the regularization and the High Court directed the department to look into the matter. In the enquiry, it was found that Singh had not completed the requisite period of 3 years' service prior to 22.01.2001. Consequently, the Chief Administrator annulled the regularization.
Singh challenged this termination before Industrial Tribunal. As the tribunal dismissed his plea, he approached the High court which held that the department ought to have issued a chargesheet, conduct an enquiry against a permanent employee, before terminating or dismissing him from service under the Regulations. It observed that "rightly or wrongly" Singh's services had been regularized.
Setting aside the High Court order, the bench observed that Singh was disentitled from getting the benefit of a regular appointment with the Authority, in the absence of fulfilling the pre-requisite requirement. The bench observed:
"The appointment of the Respondent on regular basis was invalid since the Respondent did not have the pre-requisite experience of 3 years' continuous service prior to 22.01.2001. The Respondent had sought to secure regularization on the basis of interpolation in the final list of employees recommended for regularization. Such an appointment would be illegal and void ab initio, and cannot be sustained."