STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. AUDH NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Utter Pradesh and the Collector of Azamgarh have preferred this appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Mehrotra dated the 3rd May, 1957, by which he allowed a petition filed by the respondent No. 1 Sri Audh Narain Singh under Article 226 of the Constitution and quashed an order removing the respondent from service and a subsequent order of Commissioner confirming the order.

(2.) Sri Audh Narain Singh, who shall be referred to hereinafter as the respondent, was appointed as a tahvildar in the district of Azamgarh in the year 1949. He worked in the Cash. Department of the Government Treasury of the district-According to him, though he had been employed through the Government Treasurer, Sri Dhanpat Singh Tandon, his pay and emoluments were paid by the State Government and his appointment, removal, dismissal and other conditions of service were also under the direction and control of the Collector of the district. In April 1956 he was working as tahvildar in the Sub-Treasury at Tahsil Lalganj, district Azamgarh. The Tahsildar of that tahsil had however some personal grievances against him and suggested to the Treasury Officer that he be transferred from Lalganj. The Treasury Officer instead of directing the respondent's transfer forwarded the report to the Collector and the latter instructed the Government Treasurer to replace the respondent. On the 20th April, 1956, therefore, the respondent was informed that he had been removed from service and he should give charge of his office to another person. Against the order of his removal the respondent preferred an appeal to the Collector but it was rejected on the ground that no appeal lay. A further representation to the Commissioner was equally unsuccessful and the order of removal was confirmed. By the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the respondent pray ed that the order of his removal and the subsequent order of the Commissioner confirming it be quashed by a writ of certiorari. He also claimed a mandamus directing the Government Treasurer, the Collector and the State to treat him as a tahvildar in the sub-treasury at Lalganj. The ground on which the petition was based was that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of Article 311 of the Constitution and his removal from service was unconstitutional as he had not been given any opportu-nity to show cause against the order.

(3.) The petition was opposed mainly on the ground that the respondent was not an employee of the State and that he was really a servant of the Government Treasurer Sri Dhanpat Singh Tandon. He was therefore not entitled to the benefit of Article 311 of the Constitution at all. It was stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants that there was a specific rule laying down that tahvildars were servants of the Government Treasury and not employees of the State. It was stressed that the appointment, removal, dismissal, leave and other conditions of service of tahvildars like the respondent were determined by the Government Treasurer himself and not by the State, though the Government Treasurer was bound to follow in those matters the instructions given to him by the District Officer. Thus, though the respondent's contention that he had not been given any opportunity of showing cause against the order of his removal was not disputed, what was urged was that the respondent had been removed by his employer the Treasurer and not by the appellants, and that as Article 311 of the Constitution did not apply no question of giving him any opportunity of showing cause against the order of removal could arise.