STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RAM CHANDRA TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree dated January 3, 1975 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad setting aside the judgment and decree dated July 27, 1965, of the Second Additional Civil Judge, Jhansi, whereby the latter affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the respondent's suit for declaration that order dated November 29, 1961, passed by the Superintending Engineer, Circle IV Irrigation Works, Jhansi, U. P. terminating the services of the respondent was void and ineffective in law and he was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2147/- as arrears of pay and dearness allowance from the appellant.

(2.) The facts leading to this appeal are : The respondent herein was appointed as a temporary clerk in Gur Sarain Canal Division, Jhansi, on May 16, 1954. Seven years later, the respondent was required to appear in a departmental examination which was held in July, 1961. On July 12, 1961, an optional typewriting test was held by the Department. In that test the Executive Engineer, Investigation and Planning Division, Jhansi, it is alleged, detected Gopal Deo Santiya, a clerk of Bhander Canal Division, attempting to personate and appear for the respondent. He obtained the explanations of both the clerks and reported the matter to the Superintending Engineer of his Division. Considering the explanations tendered by the clerks to be unsatisfactory, the Superintending Engineer brought the matter to the notice of the chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Lucknow. The Chief Engineer wrote back to the superintending Engineer asking him to award suitable punishment to the aforesaid two clerks. The Superintending Engineer thereafter issued orders terminating the services of both the clerks. The order that was passed in respect of and served on the respondent ran as follows :-

(3.) The respondent attempted to have the above order rescinded by making representations to the Chief Engineer, and the Minister of Irrigation, U. P. which proved abortive. The respondent thereupon challenged the aforesaid order of termination of his services by instituting the aforesaid suit averring inter alia that the order not being an order of termination of his service simpliciter but being one passed by way of punishment, attracted the applicability of Article 311 of the Constitution which not having been complied with rendered the order void and ineffective in law. The suit was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the respondent was only a temporary hand; that under the contract of service as also the rules applicable to temporary Government servants, the respondent was liable to be discharged any time even though an enquiry in respect of a charge of misconduct might have been instituted against him; and that the impugned order not having been passed as a measure of punishment but being a simple order of termination of the respondents services without casting any stigma on him or visiting him with evil consequences, was valid both under the aforesaid rules and the contract of service. The grounds of attack made against the impugned order did not find favour with the trial Court which dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the respondent took the matter in appeal to the Second Additional Civil Judge, Jhansi, who affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.