MAJOR I N MALIGI Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL NCC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who was reemployed in the National Cadet Corps (hereinafter called the NCC for sake of brevity) on whole times basis as Administrative Officer after his release from emergency commission service in the Army has challenged the order of termination of August 29 1975 issued by the Deputy Director of the National Cadet Corps as well as the order of March 8 1977 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence approving nonextension of the services of the petitioner. A few facts need be noticed in order to appreciate the challenge to these two impugned orders.

(2.) The petitioner was granted short term emergency commission in Artillery of Indian Army in 1963. He was released from emergency commission service with effect from October 1 1967 It appears that he was selected for the grant of Commission in NCC by the Government of India under sec. 9 of the National Cadet Corps Act 1948 (hereinafter called the NCC Act for the sake of brevity) read with Rule 21(5) of the National Cadet Corps Rules 1948 (hereinafter called the NCC Rules for the sake of brevity) It is Common ground that he was appointed on whole basis. The order of appointment of September 25 1967 is annexed at Ex. A to the petition. Pursuant to his appointment he was posted at 57 Maharashtra Battalian NCC Ahmednagar as Administrative Officer. He reported on duty with effect from October 3 1967 According to the petitioner rule 22 of the aforesaid NCC Rules enjoins that a commissioned Officer shall hold the office till he attains the age of 52 years and the normal tenure of his posting is for three years which is extended from time to time till the officer concerned reaches the age of 55 years. Accordingly his services were extended from time to time till October 3 1975 from which date his whole time employment was terminated by the impugned order of August 29 1975

(3.) The petitioner being aggrieved with this impugned order of termination preferred an appeal to the Director General of NCC. Meanwhile his services were extended upto January 2 1976 and then again upto April 2 1976 The appeal of the petitioner was however dismissed somewhere in December 1975 and the intimation was given to him in that behalf by the Director General. He therefore sought personal interview of the Director General which was granted to him on January 15 1976 It is the case of the petitioner that in the course of this personal interview he was informed that he was relieved from the services on account of some lapses like unauthorised absence from service negligence in maintenance of stores etc. It is his grievance that though a Commission for Inquiry was established to inquire into some allegations against him the Government did not proceed further and the inquiry was dropped somewhere in November 1974