EUFEMIO TEOTONIO ALMEIDA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside the order dated 17-11-1971 (Exh. T) terminating his services with effect from 21-11-1971.

(2.) Petitioner was employed as a Project Officer, Urban Community Development Project from 16-2-1966. The Community Development work was discontinued with effect from 25-5-1968 and the petitioner was rendered surplus. The Government of Goa, Daman and Diu vide Memo No. LSG/VCDP/1414/68 dated 6-6- 1968 decided to absorb him as Assistant Sales Tax Officer in the Sales Tax Department. By the said Memo the petitioner was directed to report to the Commissioner of Sales Tax. On 15-6-1968 (Exh. B) the Commissioner of Sales Tax passed an order appointing the petitioner on temporary basis as Assistant Sales Tax Officer. Petitioner was treated as a direct recruit to the post and was put on probation of two years from the date of appointment. He was asked to pass the departmental examination as per rules. The petitioner did not appear for the said examination in spite of repeated directions for the purpose. The half yearly confidential reports, duly communicated to him showed that his work was not satisfactory. His probation period was also extended. Petitioner represented that he was not a direct recruit and wag not liable to clear the Departmental Examination but this representation was not accepted. Ultimately on 17-11-1971 the impugned order terminating his service was passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax. Petitioner's appeal against the said order was rejected by the Lt. Governor vide order dated 16-2-72 (Exh. V). These are the broad facts of the case.

(3.) Petitioner has challenged the order of termination on various grounds. However, the grounds canvassed during arguments are only four. First is that the order terminating his service does not comply with the Proviso to Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 because the termination was not forthwith as contemplated by the Rule but was with effect from a later date i.e., 21-11-1971. Second ground is that the condition in the Departmental Examination Rules prescribing a test for retention of direct recruits is ultra vires the Recruitment Rules and therefore noncompliance thereof did not warrant termination of service. Moreover he was not a direct recruit but a redeployed employee and so the Departmental Examination Rules were not applicable to him. In any case the petitioner did not get three chances for appearing in the said examination as per Rules and therefore the termination of his service for his failure to pass the examination was improper. Third ground is that the order of termination was passed by way of punishment and there was violation of Article 311 of the Constitution. Fourth is that the order of termination was not passed by the competent authority i.e., the appointing authority and therefore it is invalid.