RAM KISHORE PANDEY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for declaration that an order passed by the Assistant Engineer, Trunks and Carrier, Varanasi purporting to terminate the services of the plaintiff is null and void. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit.

(2.) Shortly, the plaint case was that the plaintiff was employed as a workman under the Assistant Engineer, Trunks and Carrier, Varanasi. For various reasons the plaintiff had to be absent from duties for which requisite applications were being made by him to his superiors. The plaintiff had been requesting for leave on medical grounds. His applications were allowed, but at the end of six months he was served with an order dated 21st of Nov. 1966 terminating his services with effect from 7-11-1965. This order was passed by the Assistant Engineer Phones (Trunks) Varanasi. The order was passed, without affording any opportunity to the plaintiff at any stage, whether prior or after the passing of the order and it was, therefore, wholly null and void, having been passed in violation of the constitutional guarantee provided to the plaintiff as a government servant under Art. 311 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The defence of the Union of India was that the plaintiff was appointed as a temporary workman with effect from 27-8- 1955. During the period 27-8-1955 to 7-4-1958 he absented himself from duty several times without any intimation or prior sanction. His services were consequently terminated with effect from 8-4-1958. He was, however, reappointed. He again absented himself from duty on various dates, the details of which were mentioned in paragraph 3 of the written statement. Consequently his services were terminated with effect from 7-11-65 on the ground that he had absented himself without pay for six months with effect from 7-5-1965 to 6-11-1965 under R. 14 of Appendix 7-A of F. R. & S. R. Vol. II as no further leave without pay beyond six months could be granted to the plaintiff. As the services of the plaintiff stood terminated automatically in terms of R. 14, there was no question of violation of any Constitutional provision.