PRASIDH NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition, for certiorari to quash an order dated 13-9-1962, passed by opposite party No, 2, the Development Commissioner, U.P., terminating the petitioner's services. The petitioner was appointed to the temporary post of Assistant District Planning Officer on 22-3-1957. In the order of appointment it was clearly stated that he was appointed on the basis of a recommendation made by the Public Service Commission, U.P., and that the post was "temporary and cart be terminated at any time without notice." The appointment was neither substantive nor on probation. Subsequently the petitioner was appointed as Block Development Officer Mathura which again was a temporary post. In May, 1961, the President of Vikas Samiti, Mathura, and pradhan of Bindraban Bangar Gaon Samaj published a pamphlet containing allegations against him. A Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sri Mohammad Ibrahim under the District Magistrate's direction held an enquiry into the allegations and found them baseless. Thereafter the petitioner was transferred to Lucknow as a Block Development Officer on 16-84961. On 31-10-1961 the Development Commissioner issued an order suspending him but the order was not served upon him, he was not suspended and later the order was withdrawn. The Minister for Community Development informed the petitioner orally of the charges on account of which the suspension order was passed and he submitted an explanation on 6-11-1961. The Minister asked the Assistant Development Officer (Accounts) to enquire into the charges made against the petitioner and the enquiry was held by him from December 1 to December 5, 1961. On 26-12-1961 the order dated 31-10-1961 suspending the petitioner was withdrawn. On 19-4-1962 the District Magistrate, Mathura, in his annual confidential report on the petitioner's work at Mathura for the period 1-4-1961 to 9-8-1961 said tnai he left very heavy unutilized balances in all the items or grant-in-aid, that the agricultural work in the Block or which he was in charge was almost at a stand-still since his assumption of charge because the Block had been converted into a hot bed of party politics on account or complaints of corruption and mischief and relations between the staff and the public in general had become very strained and that the integrity certificate was withheld because many, complaints of corruption and embezzlement were under enquiry. On 26-7-1962 a copy of this annual report was given to the petitioner. On 13-9-1962 the Development Commissioner passed the impugned order, which reads as follows: "The services of Sri Prasidh Narain Singh Temporary Block Development Officer ......are no longer required by this Department. His services are therefore terminated with effect from the date of the service of this order. Sri Singh will get one month's pay in lieu of notice." A copy of the order was sent to the District Magistrate Lucknow, with the direction to relieve the petitioner immediately and another copy was sent to the petitioner. The post of Block Development Officer that was being held by the petitioner has not been abolished and continues even now. On 14-9-1962 after receiving a copy of the impugned order the petitioner made a representation to the Chief Minister, who sent for the record. Nothing came out or the representation and the petitioner filed the petition.

(2.) The petitioner's contentions are these. The post, though temporary, was not abolished and so long as it was not abolished his services could not be terminated. Termination of his services amounted to his removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution because the object behind it was to punish him for misconduct or inefficiency. The removal was in violation or its provisions because it was not preceded by a notice to show cause why he should not be removed. The termination also was mala fide.

(3.) The petition was opposed on behalf of the state and the Development Commissioner. In the counter-affidavit it was said that the enquiry made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was incomplete and the Assistant Development Commissioner was asked to hold the enquiry by the Development Commissioner. The petitioner's contentions were denied.