Ravi S. Dhavans J. - (1.) THIS writ petition at the instance of the State of Uttar Pradesh challenges the judgment of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal (III) Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 790/T(III)/1978 in the matter of Ram Dularey v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. By this judgment the termination of the services of Ram Dularey, a Tahvildar by an order dated October 9, 1974 passed by the District Magistrate, Basti, has deen declared to be void and illegal.
(2.) THE short facts are that the respondent Ram Dularey initially appointed temporarily on 17 February 1954 and thereafter as Tahvildar in the sub- treasury of Dumariaganj. By an order dated May 28, 1974 he was transferred to the sub treasury at Khalilabad. With effect from June 1, 1974 the said respondent was absent from duty; the respondent claimed that he had taken medical leave. On June 13, 1974, he received an order from the Government Treasury asking him to take charge of his new post failing which he would face departmental proceedings. THE said respondent did not join his duties. At the end of June 1974, the respondent was required to get himself medically examined by the Civil Surgeon, Basti. He continued to be on medical leave. On behalf of the State it was contended that the respondent carried on his business while in service and there were serious irregularities against him as a consequence of which he was transferred from Dumariaganj to Khalilabad. It is contended that after receipt of the transfer order the respondent applied for leave on medical grounds. It is contended that the respondent was extending his leave on one pretext or the other without cause. THE respondent further remained absent from duty from July 16, 1974 to August 12, 1974 without being granted any sanction for leave. It is further submitted on behalf of the State that in reference to the post which the respondent holds, Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India does not apply to the post of Tahvildar, and that the order terminating his services is correct and legal. The Tribunal considered the objections of the State of U. P. to the effect that Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India does not apply in reference to the context as he was not a public servant. The Tribunal noticed that in the matter of Awadh Narain decided by the Supreme Court, a decision reported in 1964 ALJ 777, Tahvildar is a public servant. Thus, Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India was attracted. The only matter which now has to be seen is that upon the cause of the termination of the services of the respondent, being absent from duty without leave and dereliction of duty, would Article 311 (2) aforesaid apply ? The post of a Tahvildar has been held to be a civil post within the meaning of Article 311, aforesaid. The Tribunal was right in its view that before the termination of his services, the respondent was entitled to receive a notice to show cause on the grounds of misdemeanour which were alleged against him before it was proposed to terminate his services. It is on record that no such opportunity was offered to the respondent to show cause against the proposed termination or dismissal of his services. Regard being had to the fact that Article 311 (2), aforesaid, was applicable to the post of Tahvildar, this Court certifies that the decision of the Tribunal dated September 12, 1979 was correct and there is no occasion for this Court to interfere in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) THE respondent had made a claim before the Tribunal for a direction that the post which he held, is permanent. THE Tribunal had declined this relief. This Court is making no comment upon this aspect of the claim of the respondent which was negatived by the Tribunal, as it is otherwise not an issue in this petition by the State of U. P. The petition is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.;