S. SURJIT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of writ petition No. 510 of 1971 and writ petition No. 986 of 1971 as a common question of law arises in both.

(2.) The facts of both the cases may, however, be stated: In civil writ petition No. 510 of 1971 the petitioner was appointed as a temporary storeman on Sept. 12, 1949 in No. 1 Ordinance Field Depot, Jammu Cantonment. He was made quasi-permanent on July 1, 1953. He admits that he was a Civilian in Defence Services and was governed by Civilian in Defence Services Rules 1949 which were replaced later by the rules of 1951 and 1965. While serving as a storeman it is stated that the petitioner was detained under rule 30 (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules. On May 20, 1966, his services were terminated with effect from May 15, 1966, by an order of the Commanding Officer. On Nov. 9, 1966, the order of May 20, 1966. was superseded and the petitioner's services were terminated by the President of India under the provisions of clause (1) of Art. 310 of the Constitution of India with immediate effect. The petitioner represented against this termination of his services but the representation was rejected on Jan. 20, 1967. The termination of the services in these circumstances is challenged as being violative of rule 15 of the Civilian in Defence Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1952 and principles of natural justice. In civil writ petition No 986 of 1971 the petitioner was appointed as a storeman in July 1949 in No. 1 Ordinance Field Depot as a Civilian in Defence Services. He was made quasi permanent on Aug. 1, 1952. Munshu Ram was also detained under the Defence of India Rules. In his case no order was passed by the Commanding Officer but an order dated Oct. 17, 1966 was passed terminating services with immediate effect by the President under clause (1) of Art. 310 of the Constitution. The challenge to this order is also similar as in the other case.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that once the petitioners have become quasi-permanent they had a right to hold the posts and their services could not be terminated under Art. 310 (1) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the rules framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution control the absolute pleasure of the President postulated by Art. 310. The further contention is that termination of services of quasi-permanent servants per se amounts to punishment and if it is punishment the procedure prescribed by rule 15 of the aforesaid rules ought to be followed. Art. 310 of the Constitution reads as under: