T SANDHAYA RAM Vs. ACCOUNTS OFFICER ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these Writ appeals, which are preferred against the orders of our learned brother P. A. Choudary, J the facts are similar and the questions arising are identical. Therefore, they can be disposed of by a common order. For the purpose of appreciating the questions arising for decision the facts in one of the cases may be plain. We shall, therefore take up the facts in writ petition No. 6685 of 1979 out of which W. A. No. 408 of 1982 arises.

(2.) The petitioners were selected and appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Hyderabad. They were appointed purely on a temporary basis. Their service were terminatated on 12-10-1979. The orders of termination were passed by the appointing authority under the proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. It would be profitable to look at the order.

(3.) It is clear from a perusal of the order of termination that it is an order of termination simpliciter. The petitioners have filed this writ petition questioning the order of termination contending mainly that the order, though ostensibly purports to be a termination simpliciter, in effect and in substance is one by way of punishment and the safeguards enshrined in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution ought to have been applied. It is contended that obviously the termination is not for and administrative reasons or on account of unsuitability to the job or unsatisfactory performance in the course of discharge of duties and the proviso to rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporay Services) Rules, 1965 cannot be invoked. It is stated that the reasons for the termination appears to be that The list sent by the Regional Employment Exchange wherein the names of the petitioners and several others were contained was suspected to be a fictious one and the termination of the services even before it is established that the names of the petitioners were not sponsored by the employment exchange and even without any enquiry whether the petitioners were in any way responsible for bringing out a faked up list was arbitrary. They claim that the termination was undoubtedly by way of punis ment and by the termination order there is aspersion against the conduct of the petitioners in bringing into existence a faked up list.