THANKAPPAN Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER TELEGRAPHS TRICHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the petitioner in O. P 3038 of 1973 against the judgment of our learned brother Bhaskaran, J. dismissing the Original Petition. The petitioner was a temporary lineman (phones) and it is against the order terminating his service under R.5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (in short, the Rules) that the petitioner came to this court for relief. The order was challenged on the ground that the amendment to R.5 of the rules offends Art.14 and 16 and also Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution. This contention was, not considered by the learned single judge, as the union of India was not a party to the petition the sole respondent being the Sub Divisional Officer, Telegraphs, Trichur. The challenge to the rule is not pursued before us. The challenge made to the order of termination of the petitioner's service was on the ground that such termination was not made in accordance with R.5 That ground too failed before the learned Single Judge.

(2.) The petitioner was selected for a prescribed course of training for linemen and after successful completion of the course he is said to have joined as lineman on 6th May 1973 pursuant to a memo, Ext. P1 dated 2nd May 1973. The formal order appointing him as temporary lineman was served on the petitioner only on 5th September 1973 though it was with effect from 6th May 1973. On the same day he was served with another memo Ext. P3, dated 1st September 1973 by which his services were terminated forthwith. This notice, Ext. P3, was not preceded by any notice to show cause nor was any offer of payment of a month's salary in lieu of notice made in Ext. P3. The order did not state the reason why the services of the petitioner were terminated. R.5 of the rules, together with a note to the rule which is based upon an administrative instruction, as it stood prior to the amendment of the rule by notification dated 23rd June 1972 read thus:

(3.) Notwithstanding the rule the contention of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the order Ext. P3 was violative of the principles of natural justice as no notice was given to the petitioner, that it was not in accordance with law as the order did not satisfy the requirements of R.5 and that the order was bad also for the reason that it was violative of Art.16 of the Constitution of India since juniors of the petitioner were allowed to hold office while the petitioner's services were terminated. The respondent did not choose to file a counter affidavit. There is no case that the respondent did not have opportunity to file a counter affidavit. In fact even before us there is no such complaint and no anxiety was evinced to file any statement by way of answer to the petitioner's averments in the Original Petition. The relevant file was also not placed before the learned Single Judge nor was it made available to us. in fact the definite stand taken by the respondent appears to be that it is not necessary to disclose to this court the reason for termination of the services of a temporary employee and therefore it is not for the respondent to file a return in answer to the petitioner or place any material in support of the action taken by way of terminating the services of the petitioner.