SHANKAR LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration that the order of Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Ajmer Division Ajmer dated 12. 7. 60 marked Ex. 13 terminating the plaintiff's services is void and that he still continues in the service and is entitled to all the benefits thereof. A money decree for Rs. 5153. 72 paisa was also prayed for on amount of arrears of pay and allowances for the period commencing from 12. 7. 1960 upto the date of the suit, i. e. 12-9-1963.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie within a narrow compass: THE plaintiff was appointed as officiating clerk on a temporary basis in existing vacancy by an order dated 24 4-1956 (Ex. 1 ). He was declared successful in the examination (prescribed for clerks and R. M S. Sorters before being declared quasi-permanent or confirmed) by an office order dated 11-2-1960 (Ex. 2 ). On 25-4-1960 a notice was issued to the plaintiff by the Sub-divisional Officer, Telegraphs, Bikaner Sub-division, Bikaner to show cause why the penalty of censure be not imposed on him for leaving Head-quarters without permission on 5. 3. 1950 and availing leave without the permission of Sub divisional Officer, Telegraph, Bikaner and thereby behaving in a most irresponsible manner and causing breach or discipline. This is notice Ex. 8. Another notice dated 17. 5. 1960 (Ex. 4 was issued to the plaintiff to show cause why the penalty of withholding one increment without affecting future increments be not imposed upon him for not submitting Public Complaint Statement for February, 1960 on the date. This notice is Ex. 4. On 17-6-1960 the plaintiff submitted two separate replies to the aforesaid notices Ex. A. 5 and Ex. A. 6. No evidence was recorded in support of the charges nor any conclusion was arrived at but the plaintiff was served with notice of discharge dated 9-6-1960 (Ex. 12) and on completion of the period of one month's notice, his service was terminated with effect from 12-7-1960 by order dated 12. 7. 1960 (Ex. 13 ). THE plaintiff filed appeal to the higher authority but was unsuccessful and then instituted the present suit on two grounds viz. (i) that he was a confirmed employee and therefore his services could not be terminated under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services Rules (Temporary Services) Rules, 1949, and (ii) that the impugned order of termination (Ex. 13) is by way of punishment and it therefore had been in violation of Art 311 of the Constitution. THE suit was resisted by the Union of India, which pleaded inter alia that the order dated 12-7-1969 was not void and illegal. Certain other pleas regarding limitation and validity of notice under sec. 20 Civil P. C. were also taken, but they were decided against the defendant by the trial court and have not been pressed thereafter.

(3.) COMING to the second contention the argument of the learned counsel is that the order of termination of the plaintiff's service was not a pure "accident of service" but was an order in the nature of punishment and therefore Art. 311 of the Constitution is attracted. In this connection reliance was placed on Appar Apar Singh vs. The State of Punjab (3), K. H. Phadnis vs. State of Maharashtra (4 ). The State of Bihar vs. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra (5), State of Utter Pradesh vs. Sughor Singh (6), State of Punjab vs. Manoharlal (7), Sharat Chand Misra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (8) and Sarju Singh vs. The Additional District Magistrate (planning) 9 ).