LALMAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed Family Planning Health Assistant by the Joint Director, Health Services-cum-State Family Planning Officer, Uttar Pradesh. The order of appointing stated that the petitioner's services were temporary and liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason in accordance with the terms contained in the Rules applicable to temporary Government servants, While the petitioner was posted at Jalaun, a number of complaints were received against him. He was issued several warnings. It was alleged that he remained absent from duty without leave and he failed to achieve the target fixed for vasectomy operations. The District Magistrate, Jalaun by his order dated 20th January, 1975, terminated the petitioner's services with immediate effect by giving him one month's salary in lieu of period of notice. The petitioner made representation against the termination of his service but he failed to obtain any relief. Aggrieved the petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the order terminating his services.

(2.) Sri M. Katju, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the petitioner's services, could not be terminated by the District Magistrate, He was appointed by the Joint Director-cum-State Family Planning Officer who was the Head of the Department of Family Planning but his services have been terminated by the District Magistrate who was not the petitioner's appointing authority and who was further below in rank to- the appointing authority, It is admitted by the parties that the petitioner's terms and conditions of service were regulated by the statutory rules framed by the State Government regulating the terms and conditions of temporary Government servants notified on 30th January, 1963. The IT. P. Temporary Government Servants Rules, 1953, were amended by the U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. After the amendment, R. 3 is in the following words:

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel urged that initially the Joint Director of Health-cum-State Family Planning Officer was the appointing authority of Family Planning Health Assistants but later on power was delegated to the District Magistrates by an order of the State Government dated 30th April, 1969, thereafter the District Magistrates became the appointing authority of Family Planning Health Assistants. He referred to the State Family Planning Offices letter dated 18th June, 1969, which contains detailed instructions to the authorities concerned about the change of appointing authority, a copy of his letter has been annexed to the counter-affidavit as Annexure A-8, The State Family Planning Officer directed that even though henceforth the District Magistrate will be appointing authority but the matters relating to termination and removal from service of all those persons who may have been appointed by the Director or Additional Director of Health Services or the State Family Planning Officer should be referred to the Head of the Department namely, the State Family Planning Officer. This letter itself indicates that even though the District Magistrate was designated appointing authority but he had no authority to issue any order of termination or removal in respect of those Health Assistants who had been appointed by the State Family Planning Officer. The power of appointing authority conferred on the District Magistrate was a restricted one. In this view of the matter the District Magistrate had no authority to terminate the petitioner's services as he had been appointed by the State Family Planning Officer. But even assuming that the District Magistrate was the appointing Authority under the rules he could not terminate the petitioner's services as he was below in rank to that of the State Health and Family Planning Officer. The services of Government Servants appointed by a High Officer cannot be terminated by an officer lower in rank even though the power of the appointing authority is delegated to him later on. See Om Prakash Gupta V/s. Union of India, 1975 2 LLJ 102, and State of Jammu and Kashmir V/s. Raj Mohd.,1971 LabIC 1481. The impugned order of termination is rendered illegal on this ground.