STATE OF M.P. Vs. RAGHU NATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent for a declaration that the order terminating his services was illegal. Briefly, the plaintiff's case was that he was appointed by the Collector, District Ratlam, as Secretary, Gram Panchayat in Tehsil Jaora vide order Ex P. 1 dated 4-8-1959 that vide memo Ex. P. 4 dated 24-9-1963, the plaintiff was suspended from service by the Collector, District Ratlam, on the grounds that he had committed acts of misappropriated and forgery and that by order Ex. P. 5 dated 13-1-1964, his services were terminated without holding any departmental enquiry against him. The suit was resisted by the defendant mainly on the ground that since the plaintiff was a temporary Government servant, his services could be terminated without holding a departmental enquiry against him. The trial Court found that order terminating the plaintiff's services was illegal and decreed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal, the lower appellate court upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Hence the defendant has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. The fact that the services of the plaintiff were terminated by the Collector, District Ratlam, without holding any departmental enquiry against him, was not disputed before me. From the order of suspension passed against the plaintiff, it is clear that his services were suspended because there were allegations of mis-appropriation and foregery against him. The services of the plaintiff were, however, terminated without holding any enquiry whatsoever. In Nepal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 84 the Supreme Court has held that in dealing with a Government servant, an arbitrary exercise of power violates the constitution guarantees and where allegations of misconduct are levelled against a Government servant, it is not open to the authorities to avoid the mandate of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution and resort to the guise of an ex facie innocuous termination order. In the instant case, as no enquiry was held against the plaintiff prior to the termination of his services, the Court below cannot be held to have erred in law in holding that the order of termination of services of the plaintiff was illegal

(3.) It was, however, urged on behalf of the State that the defendant was not an employee of the State. The contention cannot be upheld. In the trial Court, the only defence set up on behalf of the State was that the plaintiff being a temporary Government servant, it was not necessary to hold any departmental enquiry against him. In these circumstances, the contention that the plaintiff was not a Government servant was rightly not allowed to be urged by the first appellant court.