HARAGOVINDA SARMA Vs. S.C. KAGTI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner Sri Haragovinda Sarma was appointed as Superintendent of Taxes in May 1952 and was confirmed in his post in due course. By a letter dated 1st June 1957 Sri B.K. Bhuyan, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department informed the Petitioner that he would be placed under suspension until further orders and another letter of the same date was issued to the Petitioner informing him that departmental proceedings were started against him and he was asked to show cause on or before 17th June 1957 as to why he should not be dismissed from service. He was further directed to indicate if he desired to adduce oral evidence or to be heard in person. In that letter the charges against the Petitioner are set out. They will be referred in detail later.

(2.) IN response to the notice issued by this Court, a counter -affidavit has been filed by Shri S.C. Kagti, Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department, who is opposite party No. 1.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the Petitioner holds a civil post Under the State and Article 311 of the Constitution is therefore, attracted. The Petitioner has been dismissed by an order of the Governor, communicated to him through the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department. Article 310 of the Constitution provides that except as expressly provided by the Constitution, every person who is a member of a civil service or holds any civil post under a State, holds office during the pleasure of the Governor of the State. Article 310 is however, subject to the express provisions of the Constitution embodied in Article 311. The plea sure of the Governor therefore, is subject to the express provisions contained in Article 311 of the Constitution. The Petitioner can claim protection of Article 311. If the provisions of Article 311 have been complied with, no further protection has been granted to the Petitioner as against the pleasure of the Governor. The only material question therefore, to be considered is whether in the present case there has been any violation of the provisions of Article 311. What is the content of the protection granted under Article 311 is also a matter which will have to be examined as a good deal of the argument has been advanced on the question of the extent and the scope of the protection granted under Article 311.