V.S.Deshpande, J. - (1.)This is plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff was appointed as a temporary clerk under an order of the Collector of Sholapur dated 18-7-1959. In terms of clause 3 of the said order, the plaintiff's service were liable to be terminated without assigning any reason. By an order dated 20th March, 1969 the Collector did terminate his service. On appeal to the Commissioner, the said termination order was set aside on 13th August, 1969 for want of one month's prior notice. The plaintiff was then reinstated, but again discharged with effect from 22nd September, 1970, by notice dated 22nd August, 1970. The plaintiff challenged this order in appeal without success. He did not get any response to his revision application from the Government till he instituted the present suit on 9th June, 1973.
(2.)The plaintiff's case can be summed up in his own words by quoting paragraph 3 of his plaint, thus The plaintiff's services were again vindictively terminated by giving him one month's notice dated the 22nd August, 1970 by the Collector of Sholapur under his order No. RB/EST/2325/70. Neither reasons were assigned, nor enquiry was held. The plaintiff has a good record of service and during his tenure of service he did not receive any memo or show-cause notice and no blame was ever put on him at any time. The persons, namely, Shri K. B. Gham, K. R. Mudhavikar in all about 127 employees out of which Shri A. G. Adki, R. T. Kulkarni, R. Y. Vaidya, R. G. Karajgi who were the junior most have been contained in service. From this it will be clear that the order of termination of services of the plaintiff was grossly arbitrary and discriminatory and by way of punishment for no ostensible cause and further as a vengeance for a getting the prior order of discharge, set aside preferring an appeal to the Commissioner. The rules of natural justice and the rights under Art. 311 of the Constitution of India are violated and gross discrimination is made and the fundamental rights of the plaintiff to be in service are denied to him by utterly disregarding the provisions of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He prayed for reinstatement, and salaries due to him till the date of the suit as also future salaries till reinstatement as if he was in service. The plaint does not contain other details of aribitrariness or vindictiveness.
(3.)The defendant in its written statement denied the charge of discrimination, vindictiveness and arbitrariness. It is urged that the plaintiff's services were liable to be terminated without assigning reasons in terms of clause 3 of the appointment order, his services being purely temporary, and he not having been ever confirmed. It is then indicated that there were complaints against him when he was serving at Pandharpur and memos were twice served on him. It was decided to terminate his services when no improvement was found. The earlier order of discharge dated 20th March, 1969 being found by the Commissioner in appeal to be defective, fresh order to that effect was required to be issued on 22-8-1979 in compliance with the appellate order. Any obligation to hold departmental inquiry in respect of services of such persons was denied as also the allegation as to the termination being by way of punishment.