PARAS NATH OJHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was employed in the Investigation Division of the Ganga Bridge Project, under the Public Works Department of the Government of Bihar, Patna. He was appointed by the Superintending Engineer Investigation Circle, Ganga Bridge Project, Patna as a Gauze Reader in the Investigation Division from the 20th October 1960. He served the department for eight years and claims to have discharged his duties to the satisfaction of the authorities. On the 4th of April 1968, however, he proceeded on three days' casual leave to his village home hearing of the illeness of his wife. He was granted permission to leave the headquarters. On account of the condition of his wife, he applied for further extension of his leave by two days by ordinary post. On the 8th of April, 1968 when he was about to join his duties at Patna there was a land dispute between the petitioner and his agnates. The petitioner received injuries in course of the riot and was admitted into Simri State Dispensary in an unconscious state of the 8th of April, 1968, and was treated by Dr. Tejnarain Tewary. He regained consciousness after three days and then informed the authorities telegraphically and prayed for extension of his leave for one month.

(2.) On the 19th of April 1968, the petitioner sent a regular application in confirmation of the telegram to the subdivisional officer, Ganga Bridge Investigation, Subdivision No. 9 Baldeo Bhawan, Punaichak, Patna. This registered letter was received in the office of the Sub-divisional Officer (opposite party No. 4) on the 25th of April, 1968. The case made on behalf of the petitioner is that in spite of intimation being sent to the authorities the petitioner's services were terminated with effect from the 4th April, 1968, on the ground that the petitioner was absent till the 27th of April, 1968, without any intimation to the authorities, when in fact due information was received in the office of the opposite party on the 26th April, 1968, in addition to the previous information by petition and telegram. It is not necessary to refer to the other statements in the petition in which the petitioner has sought to justify his absence. The only major point raised on behalf of the petitioner by learned Counsel is that, if any action was to be taken against the petitioner, he should have been given an opportunity to be heard and the explanation which he submitted should have been considered on its merit and the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel for the State of Bihar, has however, contended that the petitioner was merely a temporary servant and as such the termination of his service without any proceeding being started was justified. It is true no doubt, that if the service of the petitioner were terminated or the department did not require his service, he being a temporary employee, he could not have possible sought the safeguard provided under Article 311 of the constitution. As it is, however, it is clear that the termination of the petitioner's services was a punitive measure inasmuch as annexure 3 gives the following reason for terminating his services :

(3.) The application, is, therefore, allowed and the order (Annexure 5) is quashed.