THE STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SHRI KHEMI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and quashing the orders of dismissal made by the Punjab State against the Respondent.

(2.) THE Respondent was in the service of the Punjab Co -operative Department till his services were borrowed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 1st February 1954. The duration of the period of his deputation was extended with the concurrence of the Government of India to 4th August 1958 on which date he was to retire. It appears that on 5th May 1958 the Respondent applied for grant of leave preparatory to retirement and by means of a notification dated 16th July 1958 (Annexure 'D') the Himachal Pradesh Administration granted him 19 days leave preparatory to retirement with effect from 17th July 1958 to -4th August 1958. By means of a telegram dated 17th July 1958 the Secretary, Co operative Department, Punjab Government, asked the Himachal Pradesh Administration to direct the Respondent to report for duty to the Registrar, Co - operative Societies, Punjab, at once without availing any joining time (Annexure 'E') The Himachal Pradesh Administration sent a telegraphic reply saying that the Respondent had been sanctioned 19 days leave preparatory to retirement and "he is at present on leave" (Annexure 'F'). The Secretary, Co -operative Department, Punjab, by means of a telegram dated 25th July 1958 questioned the right of the Himachal Pradesh Government to grant leave preparatory to retirement to the Respondent which according to him could be granted only by the parent Government viz., the Punjab Government. He asked the Himachal Pradesh Administration to cancel the leave and issue reversion orders in respect of the Respondent (Annexure 'G'). A telegram was sent on 31st July 1958 by the same official of the Punjab Government to the Respondent addressed to his village Batahar, Post Office Haripore Tehsil Kulu, District Kangra. The text of the telegram was "you are placed under suspension with effect from 2nd August 1958." A copy was forwarded by post to the Respondent in confirmation (Annexure 'H'). This was followed by a registered letter enclosing art attested copy of a charge -sheet which was sent to the Respondent c/o the Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, Simla (Annexure 'I'). The Himachal Pradesh Administration issued a notification dated 2nd August 1958 saying that in supersession of the previous notification the Respondent was granted 17 days earned leave with effect from 17th July 1958 to 2nd August 1958 instead of 19 days leave preparatory to retirement (Annexure 'J'). It is clear from the same document that according to the endorsement the Respondent was required to report for duly to the Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Punjab, on -4th August 1958 (forenoon) positively without availing any joining time. The Respondent addressed a letter to the Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Punjab, dated 20/25th August 1958 acknowledging receipt of the charge -sheet along with the letter dated a 31st July. 1958 which according to him had been received on 15th August 1958 and a copy of the telegram in confirmation dated 2nd August 1958 from the Under Secretary to Government, Punjab, Co operative Department, regarding suspension received on 15th August 1958 and the telegram of the Secretary of the Co -operative Department regarding suspension which, according to him had been received by him on 19th August 1958. In thus letter he took up the position inter alia that no communication bad ever been received by him till he had retired. He asserted that he had proceeded on leave on 17th July 1958 till 4th August 1958 when he attained the age of superannuation and till then no orders were served on him and therefore, according to him the orders made by the relevant Department of the Punjab Government were invalid and ineffective -Later on, an enquiry was held against him in which he participated under protest and after all the formalities had been complied with, he was ultimately dismissed from service. The order of dismissal was made on 30th July 1960.

(3.) BEFORE the learned Single Judge it was not denied that the Respondent was in his village Batahar at the time when the notification (Annexure 'J') was published. According to the learned Judge, the despatch entry, Exhibit P. 5, showed that a copy of the aforesaid notification with the endorsement on it was sent to the Respondent on 6th August 1958. It was also not denied that the Respondent was due to retire on the afternoon of 4th August 1958. It had not been challenged that he had gone to his village in Kulu Tehsil after his leave preparatory to retirement had been granted to him. The learned Judge was of the view that he was entitled to treat himself as on leave preparatory to retirement till he received information to the contrary. It was found that no order had been served on him before 4th August 1958 intimating that he had been reverted to the Punjab State or that he had been suspended. It was held in those circumstances that the Respondent had actually retired from service before the orders in question were made and he could not be bound by any subsequent proceedings.