R.L. GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by one R. L. Gupta under Article 226 of the Constitution against the State of Himachal Pradesh for relief from an order of the Secretary Transport Himachal Pradesh Government, dated 1 11 1952, terminating his services as Costing and Statistics Superintendent Himachal Pradesh Government Transport.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that he was selected and appointed substantively to the permanent civil post of Costing and Statistics Superintendent in the Himachal Pradesh Government Transport by the then Chief Commissioner on 11 7 1950 without any condition superimposed; that the appointment was subsequently communicated to him by means of a letter dated 13 7 1950 from the Registrar for the Secretary Finance and Development containing certain conditions as a matter of routine, two of the conditions being that he will be on probation for a period of one year in the first instance and that his services were liable to termination at any time without any notice during the probationary period, but a month's notice of termination of his employment will ordinarily be given if possible; and that even if it be deemed that he was appointed on a year's probation the legal presumption is that he was confirmed since he was allowed to continue in service after the expiry of the probationary period, and since during that period he worked to the satisfaction of his superior officers, drew his monthly salary regularly, was granted leave and was transferred to various places.

(3.) THE petitioner submitted a written statement dated 3 9 1952 controverting the charges and praying for copies of the adverse reports on which the charges were based and for an opportunity of defending himself and producing evidence. He also demanded an inquiry under the Public Ser vants (Inquiries) Act, 1850. None of these prayers was acceded to and, after considering the petitioner's written statement and recording findings that seven of the ten charges were proved against him, the Secretary Transport terminated his services by the said order dated 1 11 1952. In passing the order the Secretary Transport remarked that the petitioner's behaviour had been particularly objectionable, that his work had not been satisfactory, and that he was therefore unfit for Government service and there was no case for any further extension of his probationary period. The petitioner appealed from this order, but the appeal was dismissed by the Lt. Governor on 19 2 1953. The present petition was thereupon filed on 2 3 1953.