BHAWANI SAHAI Vs. SYED NAQUI IMAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The events leading to the filing of the present application may shortly be stated as follows. Under the District Judge of Patna there are three establishments of Copying Department one at Patna the other at Bihar and the third at Barh. The appointment of copyists for the three establishments, mentioned above, are made by the District Judge of Patna in accordance with the rules provided by the General Rules and Circular Orders of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, Civil, Volume I, Part IV, Chapter II. The petitioner, Bhawani Sahai, was appointed as a temporary copyist in the Copying Department at Patna by the District Judge of Patna on 15-1-1936 on remuneration basis. In this capacity the petitioner worked for a number of years until he was suspended for two months with effect from 9-2-1954, by the order of the District Judge dated 29-1-1954. It may be mentioned that he had been suspended for short intervals on previous occasions also under the orders of the District Judge dated 30-7-1952 and 6-1-1954. While he was still under suspension the District Judge of Patna passed an order on 2-3-1954, directing Bhawani Sahay to report for duty in the Copying Department at Bihar on 9-4-1954. On 13-3-1954, the petitioner filed a representation before the District Judge for reconsideration of his order dated 2-3-1954, but his representation was rejected on that very date. On 8-4-1954, the petitioner filed another application before the District Judge for leave and for permission to join his duty at Eihar on 21-4-1954, but this application was also rejected and he was asked to join his post at Bihar and then to apply for leave if necessary. Instead of joining his post at Bihar, the petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Judicial case before this Court on 15-4-1954, for issue of an appropriate writ for quashing the order of the District Judge of Patna dated 2-3-1954 by which the petitioner had been directed to join the Copying Department at Bihar. This gave rise to M. J. C. No. 189 of 1954, which was ultimately withdrawn on 19-4-1954. The petitioner reported for duty at Bihar on 21-4-1954, but on that very date he applied for two days' leave. On 22-4-1954, the District Judge of Patna passed an order dispensing with his services. This order was communicated to the petitioner by the Registrar of the Civil Courts by his letter dated 22-4-1954, which is annexure I to the main application filed by the petitioner. On 10-5-1954, the petitioner filed the present application for issue of a writ, order or direction i'or quashing the orders of suspension dated 30-7-1952, 6-1-1954, 29-1-1954, the order of the District Judge dated 6-3-1954, transferring the services of the petitioner to Bihar and the order dated 22-4-1954, by which the services of the petitioner had been dispensed with. In this application the petitioner arrayed Mr. Syed Naqui Imam, the then District Judge of Patna as opposite party No. 1 and Mr. H. P. Sinha, ex Registrar, Civil Courts, Patna, as the opposite party No. 2.

(2.) At the time of the hearing of this application Mr. samaiyar for the petitioner confined his attack to the last order of the District Judge by which the services of the petitioner had been dispensed with. In this connection Mr. Samaiyar contended that the learned District Judge of Patna was not justified in passing the order aforesaid without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him as provided by Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Mr. Samaiyar also contended that the District Judge had while passing that order, violated the principle of natural justice as his client should not have been punished without giving him an opportunity to be heard in that connection.

(3.) While dealing with his first point, Mr. Samaiyar contended that his client was holding a civil post under the State of Bihar and was entitled to the protection provided by Article 311 of the Constitution. In this connection he referred to the decision in the case of Yusuf Ali Khan v. Province of the Punjab, 1950 Lah 59 (AIR V 37) (A), where a learned single Judge of Lahore High Court had, while dealing with the applicability of Sections 240 and 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, observed as follows: