KUNJUKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed Additional Government Pleader, Quilon by the State Government on 3-7-1986 for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge. The order makes it clear that the conditions of service, duties, remuneration etc. of the petitioner will be governed by the rules issued on 25-1-1978 as amended from time to time. He joined duty on 14-7-1986. By Ext. P3 dated 13-9-1988. State Government issued notice to him that his appointment shall stand terminated on the expiry of one month from the date of receipt of the notice. The termination is now challenged. In the process petitioner also contends that R. 17 of the Rules aforesaid is unconstitutional being violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution and being void under S. 23 of the Contract Act.

(2.) R. 17 of the Rules aforesaid reads as follows: " Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Government may terminate the appointment of any Government Law Officer, other than a Special Government Pleader or Special Public Prosecutor at any time before the expiry of the term of his appointment without assigning any reason therefor. Provided that such termination shall not be effected unless one month's notice in writing has been given to him. " It is in accordance with this rule that the petitioner's appointment has been terminated with one month's notice.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on three decisions of the Supreme Court. First of these is West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Desh Bandhu Ghosh and others (1985 (3) SCC 116 ). In that case Electricity Board terminated the services of an officer with immediate effect on payment of three month's salary in lieu of three month's notice on the strength of Regulation. 34 of the Board's Regulations which enables such action. The Court held Regulation. 34 arbitrary in nature and that it suffered from the vice of enabling discrimination, naked hire and fire rule and violative of Art. 14. The Supreme Court relied on the decision in 5 S. Muley v. J. R. D. Tata (1980 Lab. I. C. 11) where the Bombay High Court had struck down a similar rule in the Air India Employee's Service Regulations.