GHANSHAM DASS GUPTA Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition must be allowed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Mittar v. The Union of India, 1964 AIR(SC) 449and indeed Shri M.S. Punnu, learned counsel for the respondents, has not been able to urge anything cogent in contesting the writ petition.

(2.) To briefly recapitulate the facts, the petitioner Ghansham Dass Gupta after passing his Matriculation examination of the Punjab University in Ist division in 1955, joined the Junior Basic Training School, Naraingarh and passed the Junior Basic Teacher Training Course in 1957. He was selected by the Subordinate Services Selection Board for appointment as an officiating Junior Basic trained teacher in 1959. In the petition it is pleaded that this was against a permanent vacancy whereas in the return, it is asserted to that the petitioner was not appointed against a permanent vacancy. On recommendation of the Selection Board, the petitioner was appointed as an officiating Junior Basic trained teacher at Government Primary School, Baroli, Tehsil Naraingarh, district Ambala. When he went there, he was informed that there was no vacancy and was accordingly directed by the Assistant District, Inspector of Schools, to see the District Inspector of Schools, Ambala. The petitioner saw the District Inspector of Schools and he directed the petitioner to join the Government Middle School, Durana. These facts have not been controverted in the return. On 8th August, 1959, the petitioner joined the Government Middle School, Durana. In the writ petition, this is stated to be against a permanent vacancy whereas, according to the return, the petitioner's appointed continued to be purely temporary till his services were terminated. On 4th January, 1962, the petitioner was informed by the Headmaster that his services had been terminated on the ground that his continuance in Government service was considered to be highly detrimental to the Public interest. He was relieved of his duties the same day in the afternoon, but no copy of the order was delivered to him in spite of repeated requests. The petitioner however, copied out the order of the Director of Public Instructions, Punjab dated 13th December, 1961 which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 'A'.

(3.) In reply, in the return, it has been stated that the services of the petitioner along with another teacher were terminated according to the conditions of the appointment, and the said services could be terminated at any time in public interest after paying him one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice. It is admitted that neither any charge-sheet nor any show cause notice was given to the petitioner, nor indeed was any enquiry held against him. As a matter of fact, according to the return, such a course was wholly unnecessary because no penal action was intended to be taken against him. It has also been denied that the impugned order casts any aspersion on or constitutes a stigma against the petitioner's character. In paragraph 8, it is stated that the petitioner's so called appeal was considered and rejected, but this is followed with the submission that there is denied in the return that the petitioner would suffer an irreparable injury and it is pleaded that he can apply for any job for which he is qualified and suitable. It is however, again admitted that no enquiry under Article 311 of the Constitution was instituted because none was considered necessary, his services having not been terminated by way of punishment. The averment that the impugned order was passed by way of punishment is, according to the return, not open to be determined in the present proceedings because it relates to disputed questions of fact.