AMUL ROY CHOUDHURY Vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Amul Roy Choudhury
The Chief Commissioner Of Tripura And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
R.S. Bindra, J. -
(1.) In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 311 of the Constitution by Amal Roy Choudhury challenge is made to the validity of the order dated 30th/31st March, 1954, by which his services, as Inspector in the Directorate of Food and Procurement, Government of Tripura, were terminated, as also to the order dated 8th of August, 1963, by which his representation to the Government for reinstatement was rejected by the Administrator of Tripura.
(2.) It is common ground between the parties that the petitioner was enrolled as Inspector in the Relief and Rehabilitation Department in October, 1955, and that he was subsequently transferred, in the same capacity, to the Directorate of Food and Procurement. In March, 1954, the petitioner was arrested on a charge under Sec. 420 read with Sec. 109 of the Indian Penal Code. While he was in judicial custody, he was firstly suspended from the service and then on 30th/31st of March, 1954, he was given one month's notice terminating his services. The petitioner was subsequently charge -sheeted and in course of time convicted by the trial Court. His appeal to the Sessions Judge, Agartala and thereafter revision to the Judicial Commissioner's Court, Tripura, proved abortive. He did not lose heart and so went in appeal to the Supreme Court against the order made in revision by this Court. His appeal was accepted by the Supreme Court on 30th of October, 1962, and his conviction and sentence set aside.
On 21st of January, 1963, the petitioner moved the Administrator of Tripura with a prayer for his reinstatement on the basis that his conviction and sentence had been set aside by the Supreme Court. The Additional District Magistrate (Food Section) informed the petitioner by a letter dated 21st of August, 1963, that his prayer for reinstatement had been rejected by the Administrator. It is the contention of the petitioner that the orders terminating his services and rejecting his representation are violative of the provisions of clauses (1) and (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution inasmuch as the order which purports to terminate his services is in fact an order dismissing him from service, that order had been made without giving him an opportunity of making representation against the penalty proposed, and that that order had also been made by an authority subordinate to that by which he had been appointed. The prayers made in the petition were that the impugned orders should be quashed and the petitioner declared to be still in service of the Government of Tripura and entitled to the benefits of the arrears of full pay and allowances.
(3.) The respondents resisted the said prayers on divers grounds. Firstly, it was pleaded that the writ petition is liable to rejection because it had been filed after inordinate delay. It was pointedly emphasised that the services of the petitioner stood terminated with effect from 30th of April, 1954, whereas the writ petition was filed on as late as 20th of July, 1964. In the second instance, it was alleged that the petitioner had been guilty of suppression very for he had not stated in the petition that his appointment as Inspector in the Relief and Rehabilitation Department in October 1950, was subject to the conditions that that appointment would not entitle him to claim a permanent post under the Government and that it would be terminable on one month's notice. It was asserted that the appointment given to the petitioner was of purely temporary character and so he had no right to cling to it on merits, it was denied that the order terminating the petitioner's services was in substance an order dismissing him from employment. It was contended that that order was one made in terms of the contract of employment that as such it does not fall within the ambit of clause (1) of Article 311, and that consequently there was nothing objectionable about it even it as pleaded by the petitioner, it had been passed by an authority subordinate to the one by which the petitioner had been appointed. However, it was added that the order, dated 30th/31st of March 1954, had actually been passed by the Government of Tripura and that the Director of Food and Procurement was only the communicating authority.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.