MUNSHI RAM Vs. DIRECTOR FOOD AND SUPPLIES, JAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under section 103 of the State Constitution for issue of a writ, order or a direction quashing the order dated 2nd July 1968 passed by the respondent the Director Food and Supplies, Jammu dispensing with the services of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner has in his petition averred that he was appointed as a store -keeper in the Food and Supplies Department of the State in the year 1959 and was posted to Mendhar, that having worked as Store Keeper for some years at Mendhar, he was transferred as such to Ramban in 1964, that on 5th August 1967 he was transferred from Ramban and posted as a Ration Clerk in the Rationing Branch of the Food Directorate of Jammu where he took over about the middle of August 1967, that during 1966 -67 huge quantities of rations like wheat, Maida, Punjabi rice, local rice, salt and sugar were received by him which were stored in the building provided for the purpose at Ramban, that he was relieved from Ramban after he had duly handed over the charge of the stocks in his possession, that a committee appointed to go into the position of stocks reported certain shortages in the stocks which were occasioned due to short weighment of rations at the source and on account of ravages done by the tats, that the committee approached the matter with based mind and did not allow the customary margin of 2/3 Kgs per quintal to the petitioner, that a hostile discriminatory treatment was meeted out to him, that he was served with a notice on 23 -4 -1968 to explain his conduct in regard to the shortages, that he duly explained the position but instead of holding a regular inquiry into the matter in accordance with the rules and the constitution, the impugned order was passed discharging him from service, but the said order casts a stigma on his conduct and has been passed by way of punishment and flagrant violation of the safeguards guaranteed to him under section 126 of the State Constitution it has been finally contended that the services of the petitioner though temporary could not have been dispensed with in the manner in which it has been done and since the order runs counter to the dictum laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in various rulings, it cannot be sustained.

(3.) THE respondent has resisted the petition by filing objections contending inter -alia that the petitioner was a temporary employee and as such his services could be dispensed with at any time, that there was huge shortages of grains entrusted to the petitioner as a Store Keeper at Ramban. that when the mis -appropriation by the petitioner came to the notice he was asked to explain his position by means of several notices, that a committee was appointed to go into the matter, that the said committee found that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was unsatifactory and unconvincing, that the committee reported that the shortages of the food grains could not be deemed to be legitimate ones and in fact the rations had been mis -appropriated by the petitioner, that the petitioner was then served with another notice on 22nd January 1968 to show cause why action under law be not taken against him for mis -appropriation of food grain and other commodities entrusted to his charge as Store -keeper at Ramban, that he was also called upon to show cause why he should not be discharged from service, that the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 27th January 1968 which was found to be unstisfactory with the result that he was placed under suspension on 21st Jan. 1968 and again asked to clear his position within 15 days in regard to the issues raised by him in his explanation but the petitioner did not respond to this notice, that he was served with another notice on 23 -4 -1968 to explain why after the expiry of one month there from he should not be discharged from service to which he also did not reply and finally on 2 -7 -1968 the respondent was compelled to dispense with his services from the fore -noon of 1st July 1968. The respondent also denied that any hostile or discriminatory treatment was meted out to the petitioner and averred that the legal and constitutional provisions were duly observed. These objections, it may be stated were not supported by any affidavit on behalf of the respondent.