Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) The petitioner was an employee in the Development and Planning Department of the State Government as an Assistant Development Officer, Animal Husbandry, from 5th February 1960, as a temporary hand. In April 1936, he was working as such in the Muirpur Block in the District of Mirzapur. On 18th April 1964, the Minister for Agriculture visited that Block and made a note in the Visitors Register that he was pained to hear" (according to the respondents, "to know") of the working and procedure of that Block specially when no care was taken even when rinderpest (a disease of cattle) had Spread. The Agricultural Production Commissioner had also visited the Block. He made a long inspection note, of which only paragraph 4 has been quoted by the petitioner. In this paragraph, the Agricultural Production Com. missioner observed that Krishi Mantri had ordered that the services of the Assistant Development Officer (A. H.) a temporary hand be terminated forthwith. The petitioner states that in compliance with the verbal orders of the Minister for Agriculture, the Agricultural Production Commissioner directed the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Varanasi, to issue orders terminating the petitioners services forthwith. Accordingly, on 20th April 1966, the Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry, Varanasi, issued the impugned order terminating the petitioners services. The order stated that the petitioners services were no longer required and were consequently terminated with immediate effect. It has been stated in the counter, affidavit that subsequently the order of termination was amended on 21st May 1966 and it was made clear that the petitioner was entitled to one months pay in lieu of one months notice. It has also been asserted that the petitioner accepted one months pay in lieu of notice on 17th February 1967.
(2.) For the petitioner, it has been urged that his services had been terminated in view of the developments consequent upon the visit of the Agriculture Minister. They indubitably show that the petitioner was visited with a penalty. Though the petitioner was a temporary hand, nonetheless he was entitled to the protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. On the facts of the case, the petitioner was removed from service within the meaning of Article 311 (2), without complying with requirements of that Article.
(3.) The visit of the Agriculture Minister may have occasioned the impugned order, but it is clear that there were no specific charges against the petitioner. The petitioners allegations that the Block Pramukh was inimically disposed towards the petitioner and that he whispered something against the petitioner in the ears of the Agriculture Minister have not been substantiated. These allegations have been denied in the counter-affidavit. No particulars or details of the alleged talk have been given; and a vagus assertion of this kind cannot, ex facie, be enough for a finding, when it has been denied. If the petitioner had made the Block Pramukh, against whom he has made an allegation, a party to the writ petition, he would have been in a position to state the truth.;