KAMTA CHARAN SRIVASTAVA Vs. POSTMASTER GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the issue of a writ in respect of an order of discharge passed against the petitioner on 27-2-1953, which the petitioner says he received on 3-3-1953. The order of discharge is contained in Office Memorandum No. B-256, dated 27-2-1953, which memorandum is in these terms:

(2.) Sri Jagdish Prasad Sinha. 28-3-52. Now, that the cases have been established against them, Sri Kamta Charan Srivastava and Sri Jagdish Prasad Sinha are informed that being undesirable their services are not required in this department. Under the Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, they are hereby given one month's notice of discharge from this department. This notice will take effect from the date on which it is received by Sri Kamta Charan Srivastava and Sri Jaglish Prasad Sinha and they will be treated as discharged from this department on the expiry of the period of one calendar month from that date. Sd. B. B. Sen Gupta Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarpur Division. The petitioner alleges that in pursuance of a notification issued by the Postmaster-General of Bihar in 1950, Calling for applications to fill certain vacancies in the Postal Department, the petitioner sat at an examination held at Muzaffarpur on 30-7-1950. As a result of the examination the petitioner was selected for appointment as a postal clerk and allotted for service in the Tirhut Postal Division. He underwent training at a training centre and thereafter he was posted to the office of a temporary clerk at Sitamarhi. The petitioner further states that in accordance with a letter dated 13-3-1951, issued from the office of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarpur, the hand-writing of the petitioner was tested with the answer-books which he had written at the examination held on 30-7-1950, and he was selected for training after his hand-writing had been compared with the hand-writing in the answer-books. The petitioner completed his period of probation on 30-6-1951, and was later posted as a Sub-Postmaster at Pukki Sarai Post Office. On 15-4-1952, the Sub-Inspector in charge of the Muzaffarpur Town Police Station interrogated the petitioner about his answer-books at the competitive examination held on the 30-7-1950. This enquiry, it appears, was made in the course of an investigation into an offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner under Section 419, Penal Code. The petitioner's case is that the local police submitted a final report in the case, holding that there was no sufficient evidence for a charge-sheet. While this investigation was proceeding, the petitioner received an order dated 25-4-1952, by which he was put under suspension with immediate effect. Then on 27-2-1953, the order of discharge was passed.

(3.) The main grounds on which the petitioner challenges the validity of the order of discharge dated 27-2-1953, are these (1) the petitioner was a permanent clerk and Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, did not apply to him and the Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarpur Division, had no authority to terminate the services of the petitioner on one month's notice under the said rule; (2) in any view, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Muzaffarpur, was not the authority competent to terminate the services of the petitioner; (3) the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, were no longer in force and no order could be passed against the petitioner under those rules; (4) the order of discharge was passed 'mala fide' as a result of some personal grudge which the Inspector of Post Offices had against the petitioner, and the order is bad for non-compliance with Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and Articles 311 and 320 of the Constitution of India; and (5) it was also argued before us that as a matter of fact the hand-writing of the petitioner had been compared with the answer-books of the petitioner on a previous occasion and the petitioner was accepted for training after such comparison had been made; therefore, the reason for which the petitioner was discharged did not in fact exist.