RAM SARAN DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Rain Saran Dass, who was working as Revenue assistant, Agrarian Reforms, on probation under the respondent, the state of Punjab, was removed from service by an order passed by the governor of Punjab under rule 23 of the Punjab Civil Service (Executive) Branch Rules, 1930 (hereinafter called the Rules) on the 3/08/1962. He challenged the validity of the said order by a writ petition filed before the Punjab High court on the 11/08/1962. A division bench of the said High court summarily dismissed the said petition on the 13/08/1962. The appellant moved the High court on the 14/08/1962 for a certificate to prefer an appeal to this court, but the High court rejected the said application also. The appellant then applied for and obtained special leave from this court and it is with the special leave thus granted to him that he has brought this appeal before us. The main contention which has been urged before us on his behalf by Mr. Dayal is that having regard to the all gations made by the appellant in his writ petition: the High court should not have summarily rejected his petition. In our opinion, this contention is well founded and must be upheld.

(2.) The appellant is young man of about 32 years and he passed his m. Sc. (Hons. ) Physics from the Punjab University in 1955. In 1956, he competed for the Punjab Civil Service (Executive) and was subsequently selected and appointed as EAC in the grade of 30u-30-850. In due course, he earned his increments until he reached the Salary of Rs. 420. 00. In his petition the appellant alleged that under Rule 22 of the Rules, he was to remain on probation for a period of three years and during that period he had undergone revenue, judicial, treasury and general training. He also passed the departmental examinations. After the period of three years, the appellant qualified for substantive permanent appointment under rule 24 of the Rules. During the aforesaid period of three years probation, the appellant was appointed as Magistrate 1st Class in different places. His case is that while discharging his duties as a magistrate without fear or favour he incurred the displeasure of mr. Bhim Singh who was the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepore. He also came in conflict with Pooran Singh who was S. S. P. , Ferozepore. In support of this case, the appellant has referred specifically to five cases which he had to try as a Magistrate and he has given his version in detail as to what happened in respect of the said cases and how he came to incur unjustifiably the displeasure of Mr. Bhim Singh and the enmity of Mr. Pooran Singh. The appellant alleged that the impugned order was in substance an order of dismissal and as such, amounted to punishment under Art. 3 II of the Constitution and so, he contended that since the said order had been passed without complying with the mandatory provisions of Article 311 (2) it was invalid alternatively, the appellant urged that the impugned order had been pasted mala fide and in an arbitrary capricious and unconstitutional manner, and his case was that the exercise of the power by the governor to terminate his services which was mala fide was open to challenge on that ground alone.

(3.) As we have already mentioned, the High court of Punjab dismissed the appellant's petition in limine and so the respondent had no occasion to file a return in respect of the allegations made by the appellant. After the appellant was granted special leave to appeal So this court, the respondent has appeared and by C. M P. No. 865/1963 it has prayed that it should be allowed to file its counter affidavits in reply to the appellant's case. We have accordingly allowed this application and taken on record the affidavits by Mr. Bhim Singh and m. S. C. Jain who is the Deputy secretary to the government of Punjab (Administration and Political Deptt).