JIWANLAL PATHAK Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO wonder the widening horizon of the emergent Service jurisprudence has not enlightened the vision of the Court below which resulted in a very salutary and wholesome decision being nullified.

(2.) RESPONDENT's counsel has laboured hard, but I am not prepared to go with him to put on blinkers and plug my ears and refuse to look at or heed the message written in golden letters in the several monumental decisions rendered by the Apex Court (see -Government Branch Press vs. D. B. Belliappa, AIR 1979 SC 429; W. B. S. E Board vs. Desk Bandhu Ghosh, AIR 1985 SC 722; C. I. W. T. vs. Brojo Nath AIR 1986 SC 1571. Indeed, I acknowledge my debt to the 'supreme' light which kindled my vision in rendering decisions in this Court in the case of Smt. Sushila Shirdhonkar (Second appeal No. 213 of 1974 decided on 28-10-1986) and Kumari Raja Bai Gourkar (Second appeal No. 180 of 1986 decided on 5-1-1987 ).

(3.) THE facts are few, but bleneding. On 1-6-1953 vide Ex. D/2, the plaintiff first got inducted into the service of the State as a Time Keeper on a petty salary of Rs. 64/-per month in the Public Works Department at Sheopur in District Morena. It is not disputed that he lost his job subsequently when, on 8-8-1958, vide Ex. D/1, he again got into service. This time, care was taken to put a lapel on his torn jacket branding him "work-charged" employee and his salary was fixed at Rs. 69/- per month. What has further to be extracted from the letter of appointment is that his services were "liable to termination without any notice in case of inefficiant work or any misconduct". Even at this stage, I might note that basis for the order was para 107 of P. W. D. Manual, Vol I, and I quote: