BIBHUTI NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for a declaration that an order passed by the defendant-respondent purporting to terminate the petitioners services as a Company Commandant in the Home Guard is null and void, and that the plaintiff legally continues in service.

(2.) The question to be determined in this case is whether the plaintiff was, as a Company Commandant in the Home Guard, holding a Civil Post in the context of Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. Both the courts below have answered this question against the plaintiff and have dismissed his suit. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) Facts relevant for the determination of the above controversy are not in dispute. At the material time, the plaintiff was serving as a Company Commandant in the Home Guards, a force created as an auxiliary to the U.P. Police. By the impugned order, the plaintiff's services were terminated. The plaint case is that the plaintiff was selected and employed as a Company Commandant in the Home Guards. He applied and was granted some leave to do the course for the degree of Bachelor of Education. The plaintiff alleges that his immediate superior, namely, defendant No. 2 the Staff Officer, Home Guards assured him that he could do so, and that the leave would be sanctioned to him for that purpose. The allegation is that instead of sanctioning leave, the defendant No. 2 terminated the services of the petitioner. The plaintiff asserts in the plaint he was holding a civil post, that the order of termination amounted to removal from service, and that inasmuch as the plaintiff was given no opportunity to show cause against his removal, the constitutional guarantee embodied in Art. 311 of the Constitution of India was violated by the defendant and, consequently, the order of termination was liable to declared void.