STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PREM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is by the defendant, the State of Rajasthan, and it is directed against the appellate judgment and decree of District Judge, Ganganagar, dated June 2, 1962. The facts of the case are quite simple and to the extent they are stated in this judgment they are not in controversy before me. The plaintiff last held the post of lower division clerk in the office of Block Development Officer, Padampur, Ganganagar District, as a temporary employee. A charge sheet was served on him on June 5, 1958. and he was required to file a reply by June 19, 1958. It was received by the plaintiff on June 10, 1958 and he sent his reply on June 18, 1958. But before the receipt of his reply he was removed in pursuance of an order of the Collector of Ganganagar dated June 12, 1958, which was conveyed by the District Development Officer vide order Ex. 7 dated June 19, 1958. That order merely stated that the temporary services of Shri Premnath L.D.C. of your office are terminated'. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against that order and the Deputy Development Commissioner passed an order on 28 -1 -1959 upholding the termination of the plaintiff's service but directing payment of one month's salary to him. The plaintiff then instituted the present suit. He based it on the plea that he was a permanent employee and the order terminating has service was made without giving him a hearing or making any enquiry. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff was not given a month's notice in accordance with the service rules.

(2.) THE defendant denied the claim and took the plea that the plaintiff was a temporary employee and that even though a charge sheet was served on him, his temporary service was terminated without making an enquiry. It was also pleaded that the Deputy Commissioner having made an order, on the the plaintiff's appeal, for the payment of a month's salary to him, the plaintiff's claim in the suit was quite unjustified. Some other defences were also taken, but it is not necessary to refer to them.

(3.) IT has been argued by Mr. Rajnarain, Additional Government Advocate, that the learned Judge of the lower appellate court committed an error in understanding and applying the provisions of Rule 23A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, and that the impugned order (Ex. 7) is in accordance with the law. He has therefore argued that the plaintiff could only claim the pay and allowance for a period of one month and no more. The learned Counsel has relied on Union of India v. Kartar Singh and Anr. 1968 SLR 619. On the other hand, Mr. Dutt has argued that even though the plaintiff was a temporary employee, Article 311 of the Constitution was attracted because he was served with a charge sheet and his removal could be made only after a regular enquiry and an adverse finding on the basis of the charge sheet. The learned Counsel has supported his argument by a reference to the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shri Madan Mohan Nagar 1967 1967SLR 147. In the alternative, he has argued that the payment of one month's pay and allowances was a condition precedent to the termination of the plaintiff's service in terms of Rule 23A of the Rajasthan Service Rules and that as this was not done, the order terminating his service is illegal and inoperative. For this latter submission, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on K.V. Gopinath v. Senior Superintendent R.M.S. and 1969 SLR 494 and Balagopalan v. State of Kerala 1963 KLT 1167.