G. Mehrotra, C.J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who was a lower division clerk In the Income tax Office at Tezpur, has challenged the validity of the order terminating his services passed on 22 December 1961 by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income tax who bas been impleaded as opposite party 1 to the petition. The petitioner was employed in the Income tax Department, and acting under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Inoometax passed an order terminating his services on 22 December 1961 after giving him the required notice. Against this order, the petitioner went up in appeal to the Commissioner of Income tax, which was also rejected.
(2.) THE main ground of attack by the petitioner is that his case is not covered by Rule 5 Inasmuch as he was in quasi -permanent service. It is further urged by Sri Ghose, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in his argument that though the opposite party 1 is purported to exercise his powers under Rule 6, yet in effect, he has terminated the services of the petitioner on account of inefficiency, and thus the petitioner has been punished and Article 311 of the Constitution is attracted, and as no notice was given to him, and no enquiry was held against him, the order terminating his services is violative of Article 311 of the Constitution. Sri Choudhuri, who appears for the opposite party, has taken a preliminary objection. His first contention is that as the Union of India has been impleaded as an opposite party to this petition and the writ of this Court cannot run to Delhi, this petition should be rejected on that ground. Secondly, he contends that as the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Central Board of Revenue, and has taken recourse to another alternative remedy available to him, this Court will not exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. He has also contended that there is no force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that as no relief is asked for against the Union of India, the petition cannot be defeated on the mere ground that the Union of India has been impleaded as an opposite party. As, however, we propose to dispose of this petition on merits, it is not necessary to consider the preliminary objection raised by Sri Choudhurl, and it is not further necessary to examine whether there are any statutory Rules which give the petitioner a right of appeal to the Central Board of Eevenue, and whether in the circumstances of this case, we would or would not exercise our discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) ON merits, the contention of Sri Ghose is twofold. He firstly contends that as the petitioner was in quasi -permanent service, Rule 6 is not attracted in his case. Relevant portion of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, hereinafter referred to as the " Rules," reads as follows:;