KRISHAN GOPAL DHAWAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two rules obtained by two brothers, Amar Nath Dhawan and Gopal Krishan Dhawan, against the State of Punjab to show cause why the order of dismissal of the two petitioners be not set aside.

(2.) Amar Nath Dhawan was employed as a Sub-Inspector of Civil Supplies under the Government of Punjab and his services were terminated by Government on the 1st June 1951. It appears that he was employed on the 9th December 1948, by letter No. AC/1-A/1379 by Mr. S. S. Grewal, District Organizer Civil Supplies and Rationing of Amritsar. The letter of appointment is as follows: "You have been appointed as Assistant Enquiry Officer in the grade of 65-4-105 with usual allowances sanctioned by Government from time to time. The post for which you have been selected is temporary and your services are liable to be terminated any time without previous notice, In case you wish to resign the post you will have to give one month's notice or refund a month's pay and allowances in lieu of the notice." On the 21st July 1949, Amar Nath Dhawan signed a letter in which he stated:

(3.) Counsel relies on Article 311 of the Constitution of India and submits that the case falls within the second sub-clause of this Article where it is provided: "No such reason as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him." He relies on a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in 'Jayanti Prasad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh', AIR 1951 All 793, where the learned Judges said: "It is not so much a question of the post being hold temporarily or it being of a permanent nature, the real question is whether a person's services are being dispensed with before his normal period of service has terminated by reason of misconduct on his part or otherwise." With very great respect, I am unable to agree with the view of the learned Judges because in the first place there is no normal period of employment for persons who have been employed on a temporary basis, and then the mere fact that the Government has some reason for terminating the services of such persons is not in my opinion relevant to the issue. As a matter of fact, in the present case even that question does not arise, because in the discharge certificate all that is stated is that the Government does not require the petitioner's services. I am indeed surprised as to how the petitioner has been able to get hold of a confidential document and has been able to place it on the file. His getting hold of this document shows either laxity on the part of the Department or extra cleverness on the part of the petitioner.