S.S. Dulat, J. - (1.) MADAN Gopal was temporarily employed as Inspector, Consolidation of Holdings, with effect from the 5th October, 1953. On the 17th March, 1955, the Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda, made an order the operative part of which said - - I agree with the Settlement Officer, Bhatinda, and order that the services of Shri Madan Gopal, Inspector and Shri Chiman Lal, Sub -Inspector, C/H, are hereby terminated forthwith. They will, however, get one month's pay instead of giving them one month's notice as required by the rules.
(2.) MADAN Gopal thereupon filed a petition for a writ to quash the order made against him. He claimed that he had been dismissed or removed from service and that this was illegal on two grounds (1) that the Deputy Commissioner was not the authority who had appointed him and his removal by him was, therefore,, a violation of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution; and (2) that before being removed he had not been afforded any opportunity of showing cause against the order. In support of the second plea it was stated that the Petitioner had been served with a charge -sheet alleging that he [had accepted bribes; that he had denied this charge; that the officer enquiring into these allegations being the Settlement Officer, Bhatinda, had heard some evidence behind the Petitioners back and had then come to certain conclusions; and that his conclusions were later accepted by the Deputy Commissioner without affording the Petitioner proper opportunity to disprove the allegations. The facts as stated in the petition were in substance admitted on behalf of the State Government, but it was pleaded that Madan Gopal had not been either dismissed or removed from service and that, being a temporary servant, his service was terminated in accordance with the rules governing his employment and he had been given one month's notice as required by the rules, and consequently Article 311 of the Constitution was not at all attracted.
(3.) THE petition was heard by Bishan Narain, J., who found that the termination of Madan Gopal's service was sought to be founded on misconduct and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India : A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 36, such termination of service was by way of punishment and, therefore, amounted to removal within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution, and since no opportunity was afforded to him to show cause against the action the order of removal was illegal. On these conclusions the learned Judge allowed the petition and declared that Madan Gopal continued to remain in service. Against this order the State has filed an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.;