JAI CHAND SHARMA Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was serving as a foreman in the Salal Hydel Project in the month of July 1973. On July 6, 1973, he is stated to have proceeded on leave for one month. On July 31,1973, when he was still on leave he is stated to have received an order from the Chief Engineer, Salal Hydel Project, terminating his services A copy of that order is annexure "A" to this petition. It would appear from the aforesaid order that the Chief Engineer had received an intimation from the EME Records Office Secunderabad that the petitioner had been tried by a General Court Martial for an offence under Section 40 a of the Army Act and sentenced to imprisonment and dismissed from service. It is further stated in the order that at the time of joining service in the Salal Hydel Project the petitioner had not disclosed the fact of his previous service in the Army or his conviction by the general Court Martial and consequent sentence of imprisonment and dismissal from service. It is this order of the Chief Engineer Salal Hydel Project which has been impugned in this petition.

(2.) PRECISELY speaking the basis of the challenge to the order is that no enquiry was held presence of the -petitioner nor was any show cause notice issued to him. This, according to the petitioner, violated the guarantee contained in Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE respondents have filed a return in reply. It has been stated in the reply that the petitioner was appointed on a provisional basis subject to his character and antecedents being verified by the police authorities and his being declared medically fit. It is further stated that the petitioner was not entitled to the protection guaranteed by Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The question, therefore, according to the respondents, of serving a notice on the petitioner asking him to show cause against the proposed punishment did not at all arise, His dismissal, therefore, even in the absence of a formal enquiry and a show cause notice is sought to be justified by the respondents. A copy of the appointment order of the petitioner has also been placed on the record which is Annexure "B" to the counter affidavit -