BISHAN DASS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - The appellant, Shri Bishan Dass, was working as a Mono Caster Operator in an ad hoc capacity on a temporary basis, having been appointed to the said post by order dated 10th Oct., 1972 when his services were terminated by order dated 23rd March, 1977 in exercise of the powers under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). It was this Order which subject-matter of challenge in the civil suit filed by the appellant, seeking a declaration that the said order be declared illegal and unconstitutional for the reason that it has been passed by way of punishment and since the procedure of show cause notice and enquiry was not followed, the order was not sustainable.

(2.) The contention of the plaintiff in the suit was that while he was on duty on 22nd March, 1977, a security check was alleged to have been carried out and he was alleged to have been found during a routine security check in possession of 2 Kgs. type metal ingot, with the implication that the same had been stolen by him from the Press where he was on duty. He contended that instead of holding an enquiry and reporting the matter to the police, the Manger of the Printing Press issued an order terminating plaintiff's services under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules.

(3.) The defence was that the plaintiff had been apprehended red-handed with 2 kgs. type metal ingot, concealed under his clothes, and that before that also, his conduct had come under adverse notice and he had been visited with the penalty of withholding of increment for six months without commulative effect vide order dated 24th Feb., 1974. Consequently, the authorities came to the conclusion that he was not a fit person to be retained in service and being temporary employee, his services were terminated by an order of termination simpliciter, without visiting him with any consequences of dismissal etc. It was pointed out that this order of termination did not carry any stigma and was not punitive in nature, and did not attract the provisions of Articles 311(2) of the Constitution.