On 7 July 1949 Sham Lal received a reply written on a portion of one of his reply postcard the companytents showed that the said card was written by Vishwa Mitter, the brother of the appellant, to his mother.
It is true that in the companyrse of the judgment, this Court has observed that having regard to the sequence of events which led to the reversion followed by the warning administered to the officer companysidered in the light of his outstanding record, the reversion companyld also be held to be a punishment but the officers plea which proved effective was the plea of mala fides against the Government.
Sham Lal had alleged that he had posted four reply paid postcards to the Postmaster General, Ambala, in companynexion with a claim application for National and Defence Certificates originally registered in Pakistan he however, received numberreply to the said letters except a bare acknowledgement.
That led to the present suit filed by the appellant on 11 November, 1952 in which he claimed a declaration that the termination of his services was illegal on the ground that rule 126 of the Posts and Telegraphs Manual, Vol.
It was alleged that the appellant was a temporary servant and as numberdeclaration had been made in his favour that he had acquired the status of quasi permanent servant, it was urged that his services companyld be terminated on a months numberice in terms of his companytract.
The record of the said case shows that the Settlement Officer who apparently held the departmental enquiry against Madan Gopal had found that he was guilty of the charges and had recommended that he should be removed from service immediately.
The Sub Judge at Ambala who tried the suit held that since the appellant was a temporary Government servant, his service companyld be terminated without holding any enquiry and that the provisions of S.240 3 of the Government of India Act, 1935, were, therefore inapplicable and so, he dismissed the appellants suit.
It is significant that though the order in form purported to be one of discharge, the Deputy Commissioner who issued the said order in terms indicated that he agreed with the enquiry officers finding that Madan Gopal had accepted bribes.
This order was followed by a warning served on him on 18 September, 1953, and in the warning in was clearly stated that the officer was guilty of misconduct in several respects.
He found that the said provisions had number been companyplied with, and so, he held that the order of dismissal passed against the appellant was invalid.
After the officer submitted his explanation, an enquiry was companyducted and the enquiry officer made his report in which a finding was made against the officer in regard to the charge that he had received Rs.
The appellant then applied to the said High Court for a certificate of fitness, but since the said certificate was refused, he moved this Court for special leave, and it is with the special leave granted to him by this Court that he has brought the present appeal before us.
At the end of the initial period of six months, his appointment was companytinued from time to time until he was posted in the office of Postmaster General at Ambala on 12 August, 1947.
The learned District Judge held that the order passed against the appellant was one of dismissal, and so, it attracted the provisions of S.240 3 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
This report was submitted on 22 February, 1955.
It appears that the officer challenged the validity of the order reverting him to the post of a tahsildar on the ground that it amounted to punishment, and he also alleged that it was the result of mala fides.
Whilst he was working in that post, the impugned order was passed by which his services were terminated.
The appellant was appointed as a temporary second division clerk in the General Post Office, Lahore, for a period of six months, on 9 October, 1946.
General Regulations, had been companytravened, and numberenquiry had been held against him after furnishing him with a chargesheet in that behalf.
It appears that in 1955, Madan Gopal was served with a chargesheet alleging that he had received Rs.
The respondent also averred that prior to the discharge of the appellant, a companyplaint had been received in July, 1949, from one Sham Lal which led to an enquiry in respect of the companyduct of the appellant.
The claim made by the appellant was disputed by the respondent, the Union of India, on several grounds.
Against this decision, the appellant preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of the said High Court, but the said Letters Patent Appeal appeal was dismissed in limine.
30 as illegal gratification from one Ude Singh.
This Court companysidered the relevant material adduced in the proceedings which showed that the record of the officer was extremely satisfactory and that the order reverting him showed that the Government was acting mala fide.
This decision of the learned District Judge was challenged by the respondent by preferring an appeal before the Punjab High Court.
150 as illegal gratification from one Darbara Singh and had demanded Rs.
150 as illegal gratification from Darbara Singh.
The appellant appealed against the said decree and his appeal was allowed by the learned District Judge at Ambala.
This appointment was on temporary basis and terminable with one months numberice.
Thus, the decision in this case was based mainly, if number solely on the ground that the reversion of the officer was mala fide.
It is from this suit that the present appeal arises.
In such a case, numberenquiry was required to be held and number chargesheet had to be supplied to the appellant.
