B M PANDIT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who is the original plaintiff, has filed a suit in forma pauperis in the City Civil Court at Bombay for declaration that the Memo. Dated 15th December 1956 terminating his service amounted to an order of dismissal and the same was illegal and wrongful and, therefore, he continued to be in Government Service on the same rank and on the same post from the date on which he was discharged and for recovering damages in the sum of Rs. 20,000 and costs of the suit. The suit was dismissed with costs by the Trial Court and against that decree of the trial Court the plaintiff has filed the present appeal in forma pauperis.

(2.) THE plaintiff, who had for some time worked in the Army, joined the Office of the Joint Controller of Imports and Exports as a temporary lower division clerk on 4th July 1946. On 16th November 1950, he was promoted as an upper division clerk but in April 1956, he was again reverted to the grade of lower division clerk. Against this revision the plaintiff filed a Writ petition in the High Court of Bombay. He, however, withdrew the same on the 12th December 1956. Thereafter by a memorandum dated 15th December 1956 the plaintiff w as informed by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports that his services were terminated under Rule 5 of the Central Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1946 with effect from the date of the service of the order on him. He was also informed by the said Memo that he would be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for one month which was the period of the notice due to him, stating further that the payment of allowances would be subject to the conditions under which such allowances were otherwise admissible. The plaintiff appealed to the President of India against the said order terminating his services but the appeal was rejected. The plaintiff thereafter filed the present suit for the reliefs as already stated. The plaintiff's case was that the order terminating his services amounted to an order of dismissal and inasmuch as no notice to show cause was served upon him and no enquiry was held, he has been denied the safeguards as provided by Article 311 of the Constitution and therefore, the order was illegal, void and inoperative. His case further was that under the Central Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 he was entitled to be deemed to be a quasi-permanent servant and the Rule 5 of the said Rules under which his services were purported to be terminated was not applicable to his case. He also complained that the order terminating his services was passed with the ulterior purpose of punishing him for having filed a Writ petition in the High Court challenging his reversion and the order, therefore, was passed mala fide. It was also alleged in the plaint that there was a violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution but those contentions were abandoned at the trial.

(3.) APART from the technical contentions as to the legality and validity of the statutory notice given by the plaintiff before filing the suit, the main contentions raised by the defendants-respondents in resisting the plaintiff's suit were that the plaintiff was a temporary employee as a lower division clerk and although he had been appointed to officiate in the temporary post of upper division clerk with effect from 16th November 1950, he had no right to the said post and not even to the post of the lower division clerk since his appointment was only temporary. It was contended that the plaintiff's reversion was perfectly lawful and was made following the recommendations of the Special RE-organisation Unit appointed by the Government. The reversion of the plaintiff was not the result of any punitive or penal action taken by the defendants against the plaintiff. It was contended that the plaintiff had all along been a purely temporary servant and had never been declared either permanent or quasi-permanent. His case, therefore, was governed by Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules of 1949 and the order dated 15th December 1956 terminating his services under Rule 5 of the said Rules was perfectly legal and valid. The allegations of the plaintiff as to the damages suffered by him or as to the order passed against him being with an ulterior purpose or motive or mala fide were denied by the defendants.