TIRUPATHI RAO Vs. D T O VIJAYAWADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus to reinstate the petitioner in respondent's service as boy-peon. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary boy-peon in the Central Telegraph Office, Vijayawada,and he joined duty on 15-5-1952. By an order dated 21-5-1954, his services were terminated. The complaint of the petitioner is that no charges were framed against him and no enquiry was held before his services were dispensed with.

(2.) In the counter, it is alleged inter alia that, since it was a purely temporary appointment under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules 1949, he was removed from service after giving him the prescribed notice of one month.

(3.) In support of the contention that in regard f0 a temporary appointment an enquiry should be held and he should be removed from service, reliance is placed on Balai Chand Basak v. N. Roy Choudhury. This decision far from supporting the petitioner contains an answer to his contention What was observed there was that in the case of a temporary hand his services could be terminated without notice and the Government would be perfectly within its right if that was done. But, if the Government seeks to punish or penalise the employee by dismissal on certain charges, the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution would apply and he should be given an opportunity before he could be dismissed. I am in respectful agreement with this view of the learned Judge. If, as stated therein, the employer had charged him with misconduct or some other dereliction of duty and dismiss him or penalise him in some way, the order would have been vitiated for failure to follow the procedure enacted in Art. 311 of the Constitution But, in the case of a temprorary appointment one can be removed from service after giving him a month's notice and it is not necessary to follow the procedure indicated in Art. 311 of the Constitution, and it is not necessary to frame any charges In the present case he was not dismissed but his services were terminated, so no complaint could be made of it. In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.