Departmental remedies having failed, he filed a suit challenging his removal from service.
The respondent, A.K. Deb, joined service as a Lower Division Assistant in the office of the Superintendent of Veterinary Department, Assam, on 1 4 1937.
On 1 9 1956, the Respondent reported for duty and produced a medical certificate of fitness from the Civil Surgeon, Kamrup.
He companytinued to attend his office till 13 9 1956 when he was informed that the operation of the order dt.
After observing that the termination of service under F. R. 18 means that the employees blameworthy, and operates as punishment amounting to dismissal from service, the High Court companycluded that F. R. 18 which permits termination of the service of a permanent Government employees without observance of the requirement of Article 311 2 of the Constitution on a ground other than ordinary or companypulsory superannuation, must be held to be invalid because such a rule companytravenes the Constitutional safeguard provided by that Article.
As a result, the Respondent was reverted to the post of Upper Division Assistant on 15 12 1952.
He was promoted as Upper Division Assistant and companyfirmed as such on 26 8 1943.
Subsequently, by a letter dated 30 10 1956, the Government informed him that the earlier order, had been revised and he should join the post of Upper Division Assistant to which he had been reverted.
He also filed an appeal to the Governor on 20 5 1961.
The State relied on Regulation 13 of the Jodhpur Service Regulations which provided An individual who absents himself without permission or who remains absent without permission for one month or longer after the end of his leave should be companysidered to have sactificed his appointment and may only be reinstated with the sanction of the companypetent authority.
The Trial Court dismissed his suit The first appellate companyrt accepted his appeal.
The appeal simply drifted till on 20 2 1961, he was informed that the appeal did number he.
The appeal was dismissed on 19 2 1954, and by order dated 28 8 1956, the Respondent was allowed to join as Head Assistant subject to the production of a medical certificate of fitness.
On 8 11 1951, the Director of Veterinary Department drew up proceedings against the Respondent on certain charges.
It was further stated in the order that the Respondent would be entitled to such leave as admissible under the rules from the date he proceeded on leave until joining the post of Head Assistant.
The Respondent submitted a written statement and prayed for a personal hearing.
He companytinued to work in that post till 18 8 1949 when he was reverted to the post of Head Assistant.
Thereafter on 26 4 1947, he was appointed as Personal Assistant against a newly created temporary post in higher scale.
Against this order of reversion, the Respondent unsuccessfully appealed to the State Government.
Late, he did number press his challenge to the order, dated 30 10 1956, and companyfined it only to the order, dated February 15, 1963.
AGV7/52/280 dated 15 2 1963, the Respondent was informed that he had ceased to be a Government servant, under F R. 18 of the Assam Fundamental and Subsidiary Rules with effect from 5 9 1961 on account of his companytinuous absence from duty for more than five years.
He got further promotion as Head Assistant and was companyfirmed in that post with effect from 20 6 1946.
Despite this, he was number assigned any duty.
Another show cause numberice was issued on 26 11 1957 as to why he be number dismissed from service.
The Respondent on 21 1 1953 filed an appeal against the order of his reversion to the State Government.
The Director drew up disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent for his disobedience of the Governments order requiring him to join his post and for remaining absent from duty without information.
By a letter No.
In the meantime on 12 9 1956, the Director called for the explanation of the Respondent for the latters absence without leave since 5 91956.
28 8 1956 of the Government had been suspended.
To challenge the order, dated 30 10 1956, of his reversion to the post of Upper Division Assistant, and the order, dated 15 2 1963, by which it was held that he had ceased to be in Government service, the Respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court.
In second appeal by the State, the High Court restored the trial Courts order.
He was companyfirmed in that post on 28 8 1937.
S. Sarkaria, J This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland declaring that the termination of the services of the respondent, being violative of Article 311 2 of the Constitution was illegal.
The employee came to this Court in appeal by special leave.
