KHUSHAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant was appointed as a temporary Chaukidar in the office of the Forest Research Institute of Dehradun by an order of the Registrar of the Institute dated 1-9-1960. A notice dated 11-6-1963, sent by the Registrar of the Institute purporting to terminate the services of the plaintiff under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, was served on the plaintiff on 14-6-1963. The plaintiff was given his dues under the Leave Rules applicable and was given his pay and allowance up to 30th Sept. 1963, though he was actually no longer in service with effect from 14-6-1963. The plaintiff then instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal, impleading Union of India as the defendant and prayed for a declaration that he continued to be an employee of the Institute and the notice dated 11-6-1963 terminating his services was null and void, inoperative and illegal. The plaintiff-appellant claimed a decree for his salary plus usual allowance at the rate of Rs. 93.00 per month. The plaintiff alleged that he was not a temporary Government servant but was in quasi-permanent service within the meaning of clause 2 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1949, having been in continuous Government service for more than three years, hence his services could not be terminated under Rule 5 of the above-said Rules of 1949. It was further alleged that the so-called termination of the service of the plaintiff amounted to punishment and the plaintiff not having been afforded any opportunity of an explanation the termination order was null and void. A plea was also raised that the service of the plaintiff had been terminated without just and sufficient cause and without giving him an opportunity to show cause against the charges levelled against him. as his dismissal was on account of the fact that some High Officers of the Institute nursed an ill-will towards the plaintiff who did not submit to their undue demands.

(2.) The suit was contested on behalf of Union of India, who denied the material allegations made in the plaint. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was a temporary Government servant within the meaning of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1949 and his services were validly terminated by a notice dated 11-6-1963 under Rule 5 of the Rules 1949. It was further pleaded that no charge of misconduct was levelled against the plaintiff or investigated, the action was taken by the appointing authority in exercise of its power under Rule 5 and the germination did not amount to any punishment hence no question of affording any opportunity of explanation against any charge arose.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Munsif, who tried the suit, framed the necessary issues. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit on the finding that the plaintiff was a temporary Government servant and did not acquire quasi-permanent status, that the termination of the plaintiff did not leave any stigma on him, hence it did not amount to punishment and that the order was not bad as violating Art. 311 of the Constitution. The plaintiff appealed from the decree of the learned Munsif before the learned District Judge of Dehradun but remained unsuccessful. He has now come up in second appeal before this Court.