JAGANNATH SINGH Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOOD GOVT OF INDIA
LAWS(CAL)-1963-6-21
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on June 24,1963

JAGANNATH SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOOD GOVT OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)AN inconsequential point was argued on behalf of the petitioner in support of this Rule. It was alleged that the petitioner, a Watchman under the Regional Director (Food) Government of India, in temporary service, was suspended on January 12, 1961, on the ground that an investigation was going on against him on a criminal charge. The aforesaid suspension order was made with retrospective effect and was as such bad. The respondent No. 1 corrected the lacuna in the order by serving another suspension order on the petitioner, dated March 1, 1961 For reasons with which I am not concerned, the second suspension order was also revoked and a third suspension order was made on the petitioner dated 19/20th April, 1961. The said order is hereinafter quoted:
"whereas a case against Shri Jagannath singh, Watchman in respect of a criminal offence is under investigation: now, thereof, the undersigned in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the C. C. S. (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 hereby places the said Shri Jagannath Singh, Watchman under suspension with effect from 11. 3. 61, the date from which he has been in the police custody. "

(2.)THE petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charge, on November 17, 1961, but prior to the order of acquittal of the petitioner there was a notice served upon the petitioner terminating his services with effect from June 19, 1961. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order of termination of his service during the pendency of his suspension. It is in this background that the petitioner moved this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a writ of certiorari for the quashing of the order and for a writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents from giving effect thereto, and obtained this Rule.
(3.)MR. Arun Prokash Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the service of the petitioner could not be terminated under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, while he was under suspension. I do not find any reason why the service of a temporary government servant cannot be terminated under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1949 during the period of suspension. Mr. Chatterjee also could not produce authority in support of this contention. In my opinion, Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules authorises the appointing authority to terminate the service of a temporary employee, at any time, by notice. The expression 'at any time' is wide enough to include the time during which a delinquent may have been under suspension, pending an investigation into a criminal charge against him. For the reason aforesaid, I do not find any substance in this Rule. The Rule is discharged. There will be no order as to costs.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.