SURESH CHANDRA GANGULY Vs. J W ORR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondent which, in my opinion, must succeed, although I may say that that conclusion is not one which I very much like.

(2.) The appellant was an Inspector of Central Excise and his services were terminated by two months' notice, given on 30-11-1951. The step of terminating the services of the appellant is claimed to have been taken under Rule 5(a) of the Central Services (Temporary Services) Rules. The respondent to the application before the Court below was one Mr. J.W. Orr who was then the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, and who made the order by which the appellant's services were terminated. It appears, however, that even before the application came up for final hearing, the respondent was transferred from Calcutta ana ceased to be the Collector of Central Excise at this station. In fact, he was transferred on 5-7-1952. In spite of that, however, an affidavit was affirmed by him on 13-8-1952, and no objection that he could no longer carry out any writ that might be issued to him in respect of the notice given to the appellant was taken before the learned Judge below, although the application was not finally disposed of till 27-8-1952.

(3.) The learned trial Judge discussed the various points taken on behalf of the appellant; but he was unable to accept any one of them. He held that Rule 5(a) of the Central Services (Temporary Services) Rules did apply to the appellant and if it did, his services were liable to be terminated in the manner that had been adopted. In the learned Judge's view, no question of any infringement of any fundamental right arose.