TABIBUDDIN AHMED Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule was issued on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of Mandamus or Certiorari or any other suitable writ should be issued quashing the order of discharge passed against the Petitioner and directing the authorities not to give effect to the impugned order. Briefly the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Petitioner was serving as a temporary off ice assistant in the office of the Sub -divisional Officer, Mangaldai, from 1 -4 -1950 to 12 -7 -1951.

(2.) THE main contention raised by the Petitioner is that he was a civil servant and entitled to the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution. He was given no opportunity to show cause against the proposed action against him. It is not disputed that his services were terminated without giving him an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action, but it has been strenuously contended by the Counsel for the State that in the present case the provisions of Article 311 are not attracted. Mr. Goswami has covered a large ground in his argument and has placed all the law on the point before us but we find it difficult to agree with -his contentions.

(3.) I agree.