STATE OF ORISSA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF ORISSA, PLANNING AND COORDINATION DEPARTMENT AND ORS. Vs. SRINIBASH MISHRA AND AFTER HIM SMT. SAKUNTALA MISRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Defendants' second against a decree granted by the Additional Subordinate Cuttack reversing the dismissal of the suit by the Munsif.

(2.) THE suit was one for a declaration that the termination of the service of the Plaintiff was illegal and for a declaration that he was continuing in service and was entitled to all claims and benefits treating his service as continuing and other reliefs. The Plaintiff averred that he was appointed temporarily as a Primary Investigator in the Bureau Statistics and Economics on 31 -10 -1958. Some months after his joining the post, he was affected by Hearnia. He applied for leave for undergoing surgical operation. His prayer, however, was not granted and he was directed to appear before the Assistant Surgeon, Cuttack, for examination. In August, 1959, he was asked by the Director of Bureau of Statistics and Economics if he had taken any steps for undergoing surgical operation as advised by the Assistant Surgeon. The reply of the Plaintiff was that at no point of time he had been intimated that he was to undergo any operation. He further intimated that he was regularly attending office despite his ailment. He under went the operation thereafter and on 7 -10 -1959 submitted his joining report. On 3 -11 -1959, he was served with an order intimating him that his services had been terminated with effect from 1 -9 -1959. His contention was that the order of termination was punitive in character and violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice. In appeal, the order of termination was modified by Government the termination was to take effect from 3 -11 -1959, i.e., the date of service of the order and not from 1 -9 -1959.

(3.) THE trial court dismissed the suit holding that the order of termination was not bad and the suit was barred by limitation. In appeal a decree was granted to the Plaintiff on the findings that the termination on account of over -staying leave was a termination from service for misconduct and was a punishment and was violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, and the suit was not barred by limitation.