HET RAM Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the Petitioner has claimed a number of reliefs but the only one pressed by him is the quashing of the order terminating his services.

(2.) On September 1, 1964, the Petitioner entered service as a Chowkidar in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu district. The contract of employment stipulated that the appointment was temporary and could be terminated by either side at any time on a month's notice without assigning any reason. The Petitioner worked as a Chowkidar until August 26, 1968 when he was posted as a Peon. It is said that he had served as a Chowkidar for more than 4 years. After serving for about 3 years as a Peon he was served with an order dated March 5, 1971, terminating his services under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, on payment of a month's pay and allowance in lieu of notice. The Petitioner challenges the validity of that order.

(3.) The case of the Petitioner is that his services were terminated because of an adverse report by the Tehsildar concerning the conduct of the Petitioner and, it is said, the report was motivated by a personal grudge of the Tehsildar on the refusal of the Petitioner to marry one Parvati Devi. The Petitioner says that the order terminating his services is an order by way of punishment and casts a stigma on his reputation, and therefore Article 311(2) is attracted. In as much as the enquiry contemplated by that provision was never held, he submits, the order is invalid.