R.N. MOHINDRA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one B. N. Mohindra, one time employee of the respondent, the State of Himachal Pradesh, in the medical department, whose services were terminated by an order of the Director of Health Services dated 26 3 1951, for a writ of mandamus and such other directions as may be deemed fit to the respondent for restoration of the petitioner to the office of the Head Clerk in the medical department of the State and for payment to him of arrears of his emoluments till the date of his reinstatement. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioner was appointed a Head/ Clerk in the medical department of the former Sirmur State on six months probation in June 1944 and confirmed on that post on 6 3 1945. After formation of Himachal Pradesh, which took place on 15 4 1948, the petitioner's services were continued in the medical department by the respondent. One of the points urged by the petitioner is that the respondent will be deemed to have retained his services as a permanent Head Clerk in the medical department. It is however not necessary to go into that question since it would be material only if his reinstatement were to be ordered.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the removal of his client from service was wrongful in that the provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and of Article 311 of the Constitution had not been complied with. The two provisions just cited require the official concerned to be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him before he is either dismissed, removed or reduced in rank. The learned counsel also argued that the aforesaid notice dated 9 2 1951 was defective since the petitioner was not only asked thereby to show cause but it even mentioned the punishment sought to be imposed upon him. He also argued that there was no mention in the notice whether the petitioner desired to be heard in person, as required by Rule 55. It was also contended that the aforesaid order of termination of services was passed without holding any inquiry.