UNION OF INDIA Vs. NANAK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nanak Singh-respondent in this appeal-held in August 1957 the port of Field Inspector in the Office of the Custodian, Evacuee Property, Delhi, as a temporary employee. By order dated January 10, 1958, K. S. Kane, Additional Settlement Commissioner who was also holding the office of Additional Custodian terminated the employment of the respondent after giving him one month's salary in lieu of notice. The order of Mr. Kane was confirmed in appeal.

(2.) Nanak Singh then moved the High Court of Punjab by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for an order declaring that the determination of his employment was "void, illegal and unconstitutional" on two grounds-(1) that the order terminating the employment amounted to imposing punishment and could not be made without affording opportunity to the employee to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him; and (2) that Mr. Kane was not competent under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 to terminate his employment. Gurdev Singh, J., upheld both the grounds and granted the petition. The High Court of Punjab in appeal reversed that order and directed that the petition be dismissed. The High Court observed that by the order determining the employment of Nanak Singh no punishment was imposed. In dealing with the authority of Mr. Kane to terminate the employment of Nanak Singh the High Court observed.

(3.) Nanak Singh thereafter instituted suit No. 218 of 1963 in the Court of the Senior Sub- Judge, Delhi, for a declaration that the order terminating his employment was made by an authority lower than the authority competent to pass that order and that the order was wanting in bona-fides" and was on that account 'illegal null and void", and for an order declaring him entitled to be treated as continuing in employment and on duty and entitled to all the benefits of service as if he had not been removed from employment. This suit was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. In appeal, the Additional District Judge, Delhi reversed the decree passed by the Court of First Instance, and declared that the order of Mr. Kane dated January 10, 1958, terminating the employment of Nanak Singh was void and inoperative and that Nanak Singh was entitled to be treated as in service and on duty since the date of the order. A second appeal against that judgment by the Union of India was dismissed by Bedi, J. The learned Judge was of the view that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in the writ petition did not operate to prevent Nanak Singh from reagitating the question about the authority of Mr. Kane to terminate his employment, and that on the materials placed before the Court there was no evidence that authority had been delegated to Mr. Kane to Exercise that power. Against that order, with special leave, the Union of India has appealed to this Court.