SOBU ANGAMI Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of termination of the petitioner passed by the General Manager, Nagaland State Transport, respondent No. 3 on 23.6.1983. The impugned order is available at Annexure-7 to the petition.

(2.) By the order dated 11.3.74 the petitioner was appointed as Grade-IV (Mech-helper) on casual basis for a period of 3 months and subsequently by order dated 27.9.77 he was regularised as temporary appointee vide order at Annexure-3 to the present petition. The petitioner was subsequently allowed to drive vehicles. While he was returning from Shillong by driving a Bus after dropping a marriage party at their residence at Dimapur, near the crossing of the over bridge at Dimapur, it is alleged, that a jeep with full speed appeared all on a sudden and the petitioner to avoid an accident took the Bus to the extreme left and as a result the Bus collided with fencing of the over bridge. Police registered a case and started investigation. It is stated at the bar that the charge sheet has been submitted and the case is pending for trial. By order dated 30.5.83 passed under rule 6 of the Nagaland Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1967, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The said order is available at Annexure-5 to the petition and in the order it is clearly stated that the suspension was in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. Subsequently, this order of suspension was revoked on 9.6.83 and thereafter the impugned order of termination was passed on 23.6.83.

(3.) Mr. Bedi, learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the provisions of rule 24 of the Nagaland State Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 1982 has urged that though the petitioner was appointed temporarily in fact his appointment should be deemed to be on probation and as such by invoking provisions of rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, his services cannot be terminated. Mr. Bedi has further urged that the said Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules is not applicable to the employees of the State of Nagaland. We are not catering into these contentions as in our opinion the present case can be decided on consideration of law laid down by the Apex Court regarding termination of a temporary Government servant without departmental proceeding.