SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT RMS COCHIN Vs. K V GOPINATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question in this appeal is whether the termination of the services of the respondent by Ext. P1 order dated 25-9-1968 with immediate effect is ineffective and inoperative in view of the provision in R.5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Ext. P1 order stated thus:

(2.) On the above facts, the learned Judge in the judgment under appeal came to the conclusion on interpreting R.5 of the Rules that we have read that the termination of the services of the respondent by Ext. P1 is inoperative and ineffective. The learned Judge relied on the decision of this Court in Balagopalan v. State of Kerala reported in 1963 KLT 1167 , that in The State of Bombay v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha reported in AIR 1960 SC 610 and that in National Iron and Steel Company, Ltd. and others v. State of West Bengal and another reported in 1967 (2) LLJ 23 for the conclusion reached by him.

(3.) On behalf of the appellants, the Senior Superintendent in the RMS., Cochin and the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs, New Delhi, it is urged that the termination of the services by Ext. P1 order is valid and operative. It is contended that a prior or simultaneous payment is unnecessary. Counsel for the appellants relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dinanath Rai reported in (1969) II S. C. W. R.92 in support of the contention that a prior or even a simultaneous payment is unnecessary. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court had to construe a rule promulgated by the Governor of U. P. under the proviso to Art.309 of the Constitution of India regulating the termination of service of temporary government servants. That rule runs thus: