STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ranjit Singh respondent was appointed as a temporary Clerk in the Punjab Civil Secretariat on July 11, 1958. His services were terminated vide order, Exhibit P-7, dated August 31, 1967, after giving him one month's notice in accordance with the conditions of his appointment. He challenged that order by way of this suit, inter alia on the grounds that he was a permanent employee and as such his services could not be terminated by treating him as a temporary hand and that the order terminating his services was passed by way of punishment which could not be done without complying with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Both the grounds were upheld by the trial Court and the plaintiff was granted a decree declaring the order of termination of his services as void. On appeal, the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, did not go into the first question but confirmed the judgment on the second ground that the order had been passed by way of punishment. Still dissatisfied, the State Government has come in this second appeal.

(2.) From Exhibit P-3, it is evident that the respondent was confirmed with effect from 1st April, 1964. No condition was laid down in this order that his confirmation would be subject to the production of medical fitness certificate. Later on, however, a Deputy Secretary in the department passed another order Exhibit P-4, in July, 1965 requiring the respondent to produce the medical fitness certificate and the confirmation was made subject to the production of such a certificate. Admittedly, this order was never served upon the respondent as he was on leave and, therefore, had no opportunity to comply with this order. Otherwise also no condition having been laid down in the confirmation order issued by the State Government, the Deputy Secretary was not competent to pass a subsequent order so as to make the confirmation conditional on production of medical fitness certificate. The respondent thus was a confirmed employee for all intents and purposes when the impugned order was passed. It is not disputed that in case the respondent was a permanent employee, his services could not be determined by serving him with one month's notice. The impugned order was, therefore, rightly declared to be void by the two Courts below and this appeal has no merit which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.