RATIRAM DURGAPRASAD SAINI Vs. REGIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by an extemporary (15 days notices) servant of the Union Government in the Regional Settlement Commissioner's office against the termination of his service on the 24th July 1956 on the allegation that his service has been terminated not in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment, but on account of certain charges, and that the procedure under Article 311 of the Constitution not having been followed, the order of the Regional Settlement Commissioner should be set aside and he should be ordered to be reinstated.

(2.) The facts of the case are the following : The appellant was appointed as a temporary servant and was working in that capacity in June 1956. Certain charges were made against him and a formal charge sheet given with the usual order asking him to show cause. However, that was not pursued. On the 24th July, 1956 he was asked to hand over charge to some other person having been shown an order which mentioned that his services had been terminated and he was to make over charge to Mr. Joshi, another assistant in the office. A copy of the order was not demanded or served on him. He did not hand over charge but presented on the next day a memorial to the Regional Settlement Commissioner making certain allegations and alleging that he expected that he would have been given a warning and requesting that he might be given another chance in any case. ("I therefore request your honour to reconsider my case and to give me one chance to show improvement.'') The order of the previous date is very cryptic mentioning to hand over charge; there is no mention of 15 days notice or notice pay. Certainly, there is no allegation of incapacity. In reply to the petition of 25th, he was given on the 28th July the order on his "application for review", at his special insistence. Here he is described as "undependable and incompetent". The officer at the same time stated that in view of his age and the possible inconvenience of an order of dismissal, he had taken a lenient view and had just ordered a removal.

(3.) He thereupon went in appeal to the Chief Settlement Commissioner in the Ministry of Rehabilitation. The order in appeal was : "With reference to his appeal dated 13-8-1956 regarding termination of his services, by the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Indore, Shri R. D. Saini is informed that his services were terminated by the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Indore in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment. Arrangements are being made to make payment of 15 days salary to him in lieu of notice. This also disposes of his counsel's notice dated 7-2-1957." It is noted incidentally that this authority works at Delhi outside the jurisdiction of this court. This was an order of clean termination with benefit of the 15 days notice pay. Any misapprehension created in the mind of the petitioner by the order on his own application for review, should have been removed by the appellate order. However, he came with an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with an averment that the appellate order was not correct, and he was not removed in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment. He urged that the earlier orders, especially the one of 28th July, still prevailed, and as they throw a black mark on the petitioner, the whole proceedings should be quashed as not having conformed to Article 311 and he should be directed to be reinstated.