H ROHMINGTHANGA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders of the respondent Government by which his services were terminated.

(2.) The petitioner joined the service as Administrative Officer (non gazetted) on 16.3.1973. Thereafter he was promoted to Administrative Officer (gazetted) vide order dated 27.10.1980(Annexure-II). His promotion was on ad-hoc basis and was subject to regularisation in accordance with tike relevant Recruitment/Service Rules. And his services were terminated vide order dated 8.11.82 (Annexu/e-III). The petitioner made a representation on 27.1.83 (Annexure-IV) to the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram (respondent No. 3). Again, he submitted an appeal petition on 14.7.86 (Annexure-V) to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Mizoram respondent No. 2) requesting for setting aside the impugned order of termination and for dirawing of departmental proceeding under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. As no action was taken, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Civil Rule No. 5/92 and this Courtvide order dated 19.1.94 (Annexure-VI) directed the Chief Secretary (respondent No.2) to hear the petitioner and dispose of the appeal within a period of 2 (two) months. And finally the respondent No.2 by his order dated 6.4.94 (Annexure-VIII), the representation of the petitioner was rejected. Now, the petitioner has come again to this Court challenging the aforesaid orders of the respondent Government terminating his services, by filing the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. S. Sailo, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner joined the service on 16.3.73 and after serving for more than 7 (seven) years he was promoted to a gazetted post of Administrative Officer w.e.f. 27.10.80 thus, the petitioner shall be deemed to be a quasi permanent employee. And thus, termination order is bad in law. Again, Mr. Sailo submits that in case the petitioner is taken to be still in temporary service, the order of termination which is purported to have been passed under Rule 5(i) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 was a punishment and thus the order is bad for non compliance of the provision of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.