KRISHAN CHANDER NAYAR Vs. CHAIRMAN CENTRAL TRACTOR ORGANISATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution prays for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the respondents to remove the ban against the petitioner against his entry into government service. The respondents to the petition are:

(2.) The petition is founded on the following allegations. The petitioner is a trained machineman. In 1948, was employed as a machineman in the Central Tractor Organisation. He continued in government service and rendered a good account of himself in that service until, by a notice dated September 16, 1954, his services were terminated. The office order No. 375 terminating his services is at Annexure 'A' to the petition and is in these terms:

(3.) The answer to the petition is contained in the affidavit sworn to by one Mr. C. P. Das, Acting Chairman, Central Tractor Organisation, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi. This document runs into 23 paragraphs, and whoever may have been responsible for drawing up the answer in the form of the affidavit on behalf of the respondents aforesaid cannot be accused either of brevity or of accuracy. It is full of repetitions, but, as will presently appear, does not answer the main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, based on Annexure 'D', quoted above. Besides containing the usual plea that the petition was "entirely misconceived and untenable in law", the affidavit aforesaid on behalf of the respondents states that the Central Tractor Organisation is a temporary organisation under the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India; that the petitioner was appointed as a purely temporary hand; and that his services were liable to termination at any time by giving him one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu of the notice and without assigning any reasons. The statement is repeated more than once that the petitioner's services were duly terminated in accordance with R. 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949. Referring to the petitioner's main grievance, contained in paragraphs 6 and 7, with particular reference to the memorandum contained in Annexure 'D' referred to above, the answer is in these terms: