S.N.DEEDWANIA, J. - (1.) THIS Civil Second appeal is preferred by Mahendrasingh plaintiff -appellant against the judgment, dated July 12, 1968 of the learned District Judge, Pratabgarh, whereby, the appeal was dismissed.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the relevant facts for disposal of this appeal are these. The plaintiff -appellant was appointed as an Overseer by resolution of the Municipal Board, Pratabgarh on 15.10.56 and worked in this capacity from 5.11.56 to 28.8.56. He was convicted for the offence of taking bribe during this period. The Municipal Board, Pratabgarh again appointed him on the same post on 28.8 63 and this was a fresh appointment. Thereafter, his services were illegally terminated by the order, dated August 13, 1965 of the Municipal Board, Pratabgarh. His services were terminated in accordance with the directions of the Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur No. F. 18(a) (131) DL -B/65/23474 dated July 21, 1965 w.e.f. 31.8.65. The plaintiff -appellant prayed for the following reliefs: (1) The plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 1638/ - by way of arrears of salary and is entitled 10 future salary. (2) The order of termination of the service of the plaintiff is void being in contravention of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The defendant contested the suit, it is averred in the written statement that the Municipal Board could not employ a man convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude Moreover, at the time of re -appointment, the plaintiff was over -age and sanction of the Director of Local Self Bodies, for such an appointment was necessary. The plaintiff was a temporary servant and, therefore, his services could be termined without notice. The trial court held that the plaintiff was duly re -appointed. It further held that in fact, the plaintiff came to be appointed as an overseer on 15.10.56 and order dated 28.8.63 (Ex. 6) of the fresh appointment of the plaintiff was the order to reinstate him. However, the plaintiff was a temporary servant because though he was substantively appointed but was not permanent, as the word 'substantive' has been used in contradiction to word 'officiating'. According to learned Civil Judge, this was evident from proviso to rule 7 of the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The Civil Judge Pratabgarh further held that the order of termination of the service of the plaintiff was not illegal because he was a temporary servant. He was only entitled to month's pay in lieu of notice. The learned District Judege, substantially agreed with the findings of learned Civil Judge but was further of the opinion that the plaintiff was given a fresh appointment w.e.f. 28.8.63. The plaintiff was temporary employee of the Municipal Board because of the absence of any evidence that the services of the plaintiff were integrated under the Rules. The rules did not apply to him because his appointment, was made we f 28 8 63 and the Rules came into force on 24.11 63. At this stage. I may also say that the plaintiff, in para 1 of the plaint stated that hr was initially appointed on 3 11.56 and worked on this post till 28.8.63. The plaintiff was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, the Municipal Board gave him a fresh appointment on 28.8.63. These facts were not contested in the written statement. However, during the trial, order Ex. 7 dated April 8, 1965 was also produced by the plaintiff, in which it was specially stated that the plaintiff was reinstated w.e.f. 28.8.63. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record of the case carefully.
(3.) THE points for determination this second appeal are: (1) Whether the plaintiff was a permanent employee of the Board? (2) Whether his termination order dated August 18, 1965 (Ex. 9) is illegal? ;