BASANT NARAIN PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a special appeal against the judgment of Mr. Justice Mootham, as his lordship then was, refusing to issue the writs prayed for by the appellant in the writ application moved by him in this Court. The appellant was a commercial clerk in the service of the Northern Railway. He was a temporary employee subject to the terms of the contract executed on 21 February 1949. One of the terms of the contract was that his services could be terminated on fourteen days' notice. A charge was framed against him for misconduct but later on it was given up and his services were not terminated because of the alleged misconduct but because "his services were no longer required by the administration" and he was removed from service in terms of the conditions of service giving fourteen days' pay in lieu of notice. The order of dismissal was passed by the divisional superintendent, Kanpur area, He appealed to the divisional superintendent Northern Railway, Allahabad. His appeal was rejected. Then he appealed to the general Manager, but the General Manager does not appear to have interfered. Then he filed a writ application in this Court impleading the Union of India, the General Manager, the divisional superintendent, Allahabad, and the superintendent, Kanpur area, as opposite parties. His application was contested by all the respondents thereby showing that they were in agreement with the order of dismissal. His application was dismissed on the ground that Article 311 did not apply to the case as he had been dismissed not for misconduct but in terms of his contract of service. This view was perfectly correct vide Jayanti Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1951 a. L. J. R. 540; Gopal Krishna Potney v. Union of India, AIR 1954 SC 632 ; and Satish Chandra v. Union of India, AIR 1953 SC 250, [1953 ]4 scr 655.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant says that he was removed from service by an order of the superintendent, Kanpur area, who was not one of the heads of departments as mentioned in Rule 1708 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I, although he was the person who appointed the appellant in service. Rule 1708 is as follows: 1708. Removal from Service: A railway servant shall be liable to be removed from the service in the following circumstances, viz;-