GOPINATH GUPTA Vs. POST MASTER GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in this appeal are shortly as follows: The appellant was born on the 1st July. 1901. In February, 1925 he entered service of Government in the Post and Telegraph Department On the 1st July, 1956 while he was employed as an Accountant in the General Post Office, Calcutta, he completed 55 years of service. Thereafter, two charge-sheets were issued against him and increment was stopped. These stoppages of increment were the subject-matter of complaint in the Court below, but before us this point regarding stoppage of increment was not pressed. On or about the 28th December, 1958 the Post Master General wrote to the Presidency Post Master communicating the decision of the Director of Postal Services, Calcutta, that the appellant should not be retained on duty beyond the 30th June, 1959. On the 8th January, 1959 the Presidency Post Master communicated the said decision to the appellant. On the 15th April, 1959 the appellant appealed to the Post Master General, West Bengal, against such order. The appeal was dismissed. On the 1st July, 1961 the appellant has completed 60 years of age.

(2.) An application under Article 226 of the Constitution was made on or about the 2nd September, 1959. In the application the respondents are (1) Post Master General, West Bengal Circle, (2) Presidency Post Master, Calcutta, (3) Director of Postal Services, Calcutta, (4) Deputy Presidency Post Master, Calcutta, and (5) the Union of India. The appellant in the application prayed for the issue of a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to rescind, recall and withdraw or forbear from giving effect to, inter-alia, the order above-named to the effect that the appellant should not be retained in service beyond the 30th June, 1959. It is also prayed that a writ in the nature of certiorari should be issued quashing the said order, and for other reliefs.

(3.) This application came up for hearing before Mitter, J. and by his judgment dated the 27th June, 1961 the learned Judge rejected the application and discharged the Rule. It is against this order that this appeal is directed.