Y N REDDY Vs. DIRECTOR OF FIELD PUBLICITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined as a Mechanic in the Office of the Director of Publicity on 1/07/1965 and later on he was appointed as a Field Publicity Assistant on 1/08/1967. The petitioner has been working in a temporary capacity and is governed by the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rule, 1965. Acting under the sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules, the Director of Field Publicity, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi, gave the petitioner a notice on 31/07/1981 informing him that his services would stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date on which the notice was served on him. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging that notice.

(2.) The petitioners claim regarding the validity of the notice has been denied by the Government in a counter-affidavit filed by the Regional Director, Directorate of Field Publicity, Government of India, New Delhi. In the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner continued to be a Field Publicity Assistant at Hyderabad from 18/03/1974 to 2/05/1979; and during that period, the petitioner availed himself of earned leave on several occasions between 14/06/1976 and 28/11/1977. What is more, the counter alleges that the petitioner stayed away from duty without any sanction of leave for ten months from 1/04/1978 to 1/02/1979. It appears that the petitioner joined duty on 2/02/1979 by furnishing a medical certificate and when the petitioner was transferred to Kakinada Unit on 2/08/1979, he never joined at Kakinada although he had drawn Transfer T.A. advance of Rs. 730.00 and advance of pay of Rs. 540.00. A memo was issued to the petitioner on 15/09/1979 to which the petitioner replied on 2 5/09/1979 that he fell sick and requested for medical leave from 2/05/1979 to 30/09/1979. An explanation was called for from the petitioner on 9/11/1979. On 18/09/1980, the petitioner assured the Department that he would join at Kakinada on 1/10/1980 but actually he did not join. The counter-affidavit further said :

(3.) The petitioners argument challenging the impugned notice is based on violation of Arts. 14 & 16 of the Constitution and also denial of his right to be declared as quasi-permanent. I think the petitioners claim that he ought to have been declared quasi-permanent would not really be the criterion for the decision of this case relating to the validity of termination of his temporary service. The petitioners rights as a temporary servant can only be terminated on the footing that he continued to be a temporary civil servant governed by the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules. Now judging the petitioners right from the angle, it is clear that the petitioners services cannot be arbitrarily terminated. In the Manager, Government Branch Press v. D. B. Belliappa, [1979-I L.L.J. 156], the Supreme Court held that the termination of service of a temporary Government servant, without any reason, cannot be justified under the Constitution. It, therefore, becomes necessary for the Government to justify the order passed terminating the services of the petitioner even though the petitioner is a temporary Government servant. It is for that purpose the Governments counter has explained the circumstances and events that had induced the Government to terminate the services of the petitioner. Those circumstances and reasons that induced the Government to put an end to the services of the petitioner are non-attendance of the petitioner to his duties.