V.P. REHABAR Vs. THE PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner V.P. Rehbar has challenged the order passed by the respondent State of Punjab through its Financial Commissioner on 1st of July. 1963, terminating his services as a Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Bhunga. on the ground that these were ''no longer required". In his petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made a mention of his sacrifices as political sufferer in the cause of struggle for independence of the country and to the improvement which he made in his qualifications after the partition. The petitioner was appointed a Block Development and Panchayat Officer in the scale of Rs. 250 -25 350/2. -500 by the order of the Punjab Government of 21st of September, 1961. The post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, though temporary, was "likely to continue" in terms of the appointment order and the period of probation was to be two years provided the post continued to exist. It was also a term in his appointment order, which is Annexure 'A' that the services "could be terminated without notice if administrative exigencies so dictate". In other respects the Punjab Civil Services Rules were made applicable to the post to which the petitioner was appointed.

(2.) ON 17th of February, 1962, the petitioner, when he was posted as Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Lehra Gagga, addressed letter directly to the Director -General, National Employment Exchanges, New Delhi, in which he made certain complaints about the departmental matters and also suggested improvements to ameliorate the lot of those who were unemployed. This is Annexure 'B'. On 7th of May, 1962, the Director, National Employment Exchange Punjab, at Ambal wrote to the Secretary, Punjab Government, in the Labour and Employment Departments (Annexure 'C') that the petitioner had addressed a fetter directly to the Government of India on a matter concerning the Employment Exchanges. The petitioner was further stated to have addressed a public meeting of Panches and Sarpanches at Nilokkeri in which Employment Exchanges were described as "institutions of unemployment" created with the object of showing "work -load". The petitioner is said to have criticized not only the Department of Employment Exchanges but his own.

(3.) IN a very earnest argument addressed by Mr. Hoshiarpuri. the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been urged that the order of termination of services, though it purports to be a simple order of discharge, has, in the context of events, to be construed as an order imposing a publishment and a stigma being attached to the order of termination of services a notice was required under the provisions of Article 3 1 of the Constitution. Mr. Hoshiarpuri further submits the rule 9 of the Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 952, which are found in Appendix 2:4 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume 1, Part II, lays down that :