BHAWANI SAHAI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal of Bhawani Sahai is directed against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Jodhpur, dated 18th May, 1957 dismissing his suit for a declaration that the order of termination of his service dated 31st December, 1948, is illegal and void and therefore, he should be granted a decree for Rs. 74,900/- for compensation for the said wrongful termination of his services.

(2.) THE plaintiff Bhawani Sahai was in the employment of the erstwhile State of Jodhpur and he was holding a post, at the relevant time, that is, 31st December, 1948, of the Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur and was drawing Rs. 675/- as pay in the grade of Rs. 650-25-850. THE case of the plaintiff is that he had a very good and brilliant record of service and throughout his career of service he discharged his duties honestly and diligently with the result that his services were always rewarded by the grant of extra promotions and written appreciations. THE Pradhan Mantri of the Jodhpur State by his order dated 31st December, 1948, terminated the plaintiff's services with effect from 1st January, 1949 without assigning any reasons for doing so. His contention is that the said order of the Pradhan Mantri was illegal and void because he was appointed as a Commissioner of Customs by the then Ruler of the Jodhpur State and he could not, therefore, be removed from service by any other authority except the Ruler. He further contended that His Highness the Maharaja Sahib was not present in the Jodhpur State from 7th December, 1948 to 17th January, 1949 and, therefore, his consent could not have been obtained to terminate the plaintiff's services. THE Pradhan Mantri and the Council of Ministers, who were subordinate to His Highness the Maharaja of Jodhpur, had no authority to pass the impugned order. He also alleged that it was against the principles of natural justice to terminate the plaintiff's services without calling any explanation from the plaintiff and also making an enquiry and giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to produce his defence into the reasons which actuated the authorities to pass the impugned order. This, according to the plaintiff, violated the general circular issued by the Jodhpur Government on 25th December, 1948, and also the provisions of the Marwar Service Regulations which governed the plaintiff's conditions of Service. THE plaintiff also challenged the order as being malafide and prejudicial. After the State of Jodhpur was merged in the United State of Rajasthan, the plaintiff served the successor State of Rajasthan with a notice under sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereafter brought a suit on the 20th January, 1955, claiming Rs. 64,700/- which he would have drawn as his salary till he attained the age of superannuation on 29th February, 1956 and Rs. 10,200/- as special contribution and further prayed that the order terminating the services of the plaintiff be declared illegal and void and it may be declared that he was still continuing in service.

(3.) SIMILAR is the position here. General Circulars referred to by the plaintiff's counsel have not been issued or framed under any statute. They seem to have been issued by the Dewan of Jodhpur State for the guidance of the officers in the discharge of their duties. I feel that it would have been certainly in the interest of fair play and justice if the plaintiff had been served with a notice and had been afforded an opportunity to show cause for the action taken against him, but if the principles embodied in these Circulars have not been complied with, it would not vitiate the order passed by the competent authority simply because the high principles enshrined in the Circulars were not taken note of by the authorities that issued the impugned order. They have no force of law as they cannot be said to have been issued by the State Council under the rule making authority as conferred on it by sec. 70 of the Government of Jodhpur Act, 1947.