BALBHADDAR PRASAD Vs. COLLECTOR FATEHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of an order of the Collector of Fatehpur disapproving of the re-employment of the petitioner as a Tahvildar. The petitioner also asks for an order directing his re-instatement as a Tahvildar. The facts, as alleged in the affidavit supporting the peiition, are these: The petitioner was appointed a Tahvildar by the Government Treasurer, Fatehpur on 14-1-1949. He was involved in an embezzlement case which led to his prosecution. This resulted in the discharge of the petitioner and the termination of his appointment as Tahvildar. Subsequently the learned Magistrate, who tried the criminal case held that the petitioner was not technically guilty of any offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and discharged him. He, however, observed that the conduct of the petitioner might afford good ground for any departmental action against him.

(2.) After he had been discharged in the criminal case the petitioner made an application for his re-instatement as Tahvildar. The application was forwarded by the Government Treasurer, but the Collector, in the exercise of his powers under R. 47 of the Sub-Treasury Manual refused to approve of his re-employment. Consequently the Government Treasurer did not re-employ him. Aggrieved by the decision of the Collector withholding his approval, the petitioner has come to this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Con-stitution.

(3.) The petition is opposed by the State and a counter-affidavit has been filed. It is denied that the petitioner is a Government servant or entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. It is stated on behalf of the State that Tahvildars are not Government servants. No Character Roll of Tahvildars is maintained. It is conceded by the State that the Collector refused to accord his approval for the petitioner's re-employment, but it is contended that the petitioner was not removed from his post by any order of the Collector, who merely withheld his approval of his re-appointment. According to the State the petitioner's services were terminated by his own employer that is, the Government Treasurer.