Authority: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla

Order Date: 31 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner Laxmi Singh (conductor) vs. Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and others.
  • Employment Details: Appointed on 17 Oct 1990; probation period of two years per Clause 9 of appointment order; services terminated on 6 Mar 1992 by office order stating "services no longer required".
  • Criminal Proceedings: Charged under IPC §§ 342, 451, 380 read with 307 for theft and attempted murder; acquitted by Kinnaur Sessions Judge on 26 Jun 1996; State’s appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 705 of 1996) dismissed by Division Bench on 15 May 2010.
  • Reinstatement Attempts: Represented for reinstatement on 15 Jul 2010; Civil Writ Petition CWP No. 8506 of 2010 filed seeking reinstatement with back wages from 6 Mar 1992; petition disposed on 6 Jan 2011 directing respondents to hear representation; hearing on 14 Mar 2011 resulted in office order dated 5 Apr 2011 rejecting reinstatement, stating termination was due to service record, not criminal case.
  • Current Writ Petition: CWP No. 8859 of 2011 filed seeking quashing of the 5 Apr 2011 order on ground that termination during probation was stigmatic and punitive; reliance on case law including Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI, Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, Life Insurance Corp of India v. Raghavendra Seshagiri Rao Kulkarni.
  • Court Findings: Review of petitioner’s service history revealed ten instances of charge‑sheets or memos for dereliction of duties within two years, including a charge‑sheet under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules leading to six‑month increment stoppage; termination under Clause 9 for unsatisfactory service during probation is permissible without a formal departmental enquiry; cited Supreme Court decisions affirming that a probationer may be terminated by an innocuous order when performance is unsatisfactory and that punitive termination requires a formal enquiry.
  • Conclusion on Office Orders: The original termination order of 6 Mar 1992 is not stigmatic; the 5 Apr 2011 order correctly clarifies that discharge was based on service record, not the criminal case.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed as lacking merit; no interference with the termination order dated 6 Mar 1992; petitioner ordered to bear costs.

Topics: Employment Law, Termination of Service