JAYANTI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application of one Jayanti Prasad Srivastava, an employee in the Civil Supplies Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh, for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh, the District Magistrate of Mirzapur and the District Supply Officer of Mirzapur, not to terminate the services of the applicant without complying with Article 311, Sub-clause (2) of the Constitution of India, and praying further that the notice of termination of service dated 26th April 1951 given by the District Magistrate, Mirzapur, be declared to be inoperative and bad in law. The facts disclosed in the affidavit submitted along with the application are as follows.

(2.) The applicant is employed as supply inspector in the District Supply Office at Mirzapur. On the 24th April 1951, the Hon'ble Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, Minister for Food and Civil Supplies, State of Uttar Pradesh visited the district of Mirzapur. At the instance of the said Minister, the applicant was served with a notice dated the 26th April 1951, under the signature of the District Magistrate, Mirzapur, notifying that the applicant's services were to be terminated on the expiry of one month's notice, that is, with effect from the 26th May 1951. The notice was in the following terms : "All the posts in the Food & Civil Supplies Department are temporary posts and these have been extended from lime to time according to the requirements. The conditions of service of these posts stipulate that the services of the Incumbents are liable to termination with one month's notice. 2. Due to his bad reputation in the Rationing and Supply organization it has been decided to retrench Sri Jayanti Prasad Srivastava, Supply Inspector.

(3.) Article 311 of the Constitution of India requires that every person who holds any civil post under the Union shall before dismissal or removal or reduction in rank be given an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. It is not admitted that this provision has any application to the category of personnel in question, but assuming that it does, I am satisfied that in view of the person involved and the nature of reasons for retrenchment it does not seem reasonable to give the individual an opportunity to show cause why his services should not be terminated.