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 20 October 1960. He served the department for eight years and claims to have discharged his duties to the satisfaction of the authorities. On 4 April 1968, however, he proceeded on three day casual leave to his village home hearings of the illness of his wife. He was granted permission to leave the headquarters. On account of the condition of his wife, be applied for further extension of his leave by two days ordinary post. On 8 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 the course of the riot and was admitted into Simri State dispensary in an unconscious state on 8 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 19 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 Subdivisional officer(opposite party 4) on 25 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 4 April 1968, on the ground that the petitioner was absent till 27 Aprill 1968, without, any intimation to the authorities, when in fact due information was received in the office of the opposite party on 25 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 petitiners", he should have been given an opportunity to be heard and the explanation which he submitted should have been considered on its merit and on 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 possibly aginst the safeguard provided under Article 311 of tire Constitution. As it is, however, it is clear that the termination of the petitioner's services was a punitive measure inasmuch as annexure 5 gives the following gives the following reason for terminating his services: He had been severely warned previously also in this office letter No. 137, dated 8 February 1968 to mend himself and not to repeat such habits in future. But he did not correct himself, rather absented himself without any information to his officers. Reviewing his past conduct, the undersigned has reached the conclusion that he is neither standing to his duties nor interested with the work and due to which he keeps himself out of duty which amounts to the gross misconduct. Hence his services are hereby terminated with effect from 4 April 1968 forenoon. (Sd.) D. Prasad, 27 April 1968, Executive Engineer, Ganga Bridge Project Investigation Division No. 3. This is professedly an order of punitive nature and in such a case it has been held that even a temporary employee in such circumstances is entitled to the protection of Article 3." of the Constitution and as such a regular proceeding should have been started against him, the cause shown considered and all the requirements of the article should have been fulfilled before the services were terminated.

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