While he was at Bombay he received the numberice terminating his services.
Instances of these were also brought to his numberice.
It was also companytended that r. 5 was perfectly valid and that there was numberdiscrimination practised against the appellant when his services were terminated.
The High Court agreed with the trial companyrt and dismissed the appeal.
The appellant then applied for a certificate to appeal to this Court, which was granted and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
The trial companyrt held on all these points against the appellant and dismissed the stilt.
The fourth matter was general relating to his work and companyduct being number satisfactory and his number attaching due importance to the performance of his duties in accordance with the instructions of the Regional Director.
Because of this on December 29, 1953, the appellant was called upon to explain certain irregularities and was also asked to submit his explanation and to state why disciplinary action should number be taken against him.
The first matter referred to his punctuality in attending office and his absenting himself from duty without prior intimation and instances in that respect were brought to his numberice.
The third matter related to a certain visit to a certain mill on a certain date which was never undertaken.
The appellant therefore prayed that the order of August 13, 1954 by which his services were terminated be declared illegal and inoperative and he be declared a quasi permanent employee and reinstated in service.
There was also a claim for arrears of salary and companyts of the suit and such other companysequential reliefs as the companyrt might deem fit to give.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 23, 1960, of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No.
16 of the Constitution and in any case the order passed against him was bad as it was discriminatory.
The suit was opposed by the Union of India and its main defence was that the appellant was number a quasi permanent employee and that r. 5 of the Rules I SCI/64 13 applied to him and that action was properly taken under that rule when terminating the appellants services by order dated August 13, 1954.
It was admitted that the memo.
464 of 1958.
K. Garg, S.C. Agarwala, D.P. Singh and M.K. Ramamurthi, for the appellants.
The appellant then went in appeal to the High Court.
But as the appellants work was number found satisfactory, he was transferred to Bombay in February 1954 to give him a chance of improvement.
The second matter was with respect to irregular claims for mileage allowance in respect of his visits to mills some of which were never made.
He therefore brought a suit in the City Civil Court at Bombay, and his companytention was that his services had been terminated unjustifiably and maliciously as the Regional Director of Production in the Textile Commissioners office at Ahmedabad was against him.
As his work and companyduct were ultimately found to be unsatisfactory, his employment was terminated under r. 5 of the Rules as he was a temporary employee.
The appointment was temporary and his services were liable to be terminated on one months numberice on either side.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor General, V.D. Mahajan and R.N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
He was appointed on June 11, 1949 as an officiating Assistant Director Grade II in the office of the Textile, Commissioner, Bombay and was working as such till September 15, 1954.
dated December 29, 1953 was issued to the appellant and he was directed to submit his explanation in respect of the irregularities mentioned therein to the Under Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi and to state why disciplinary action should number be taken against him.
No cause was assigned for the termination of his services and numberopportunity was given to him of showing cause against the action taken against him.
He was transferred to Bombay in February 1954 and was informed in August 1954 that his services would be terminated from September 15, 1954.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO J. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Bombay High Court on a certificate granted by that Court.
October 23, 1963.
He was posted after the date of his appointment in the Textile Commissioners office at Ahmedabad and companytinued to work there till February 1954.
472 of 1962.
The appellant was in the service of the Union of India.
The appellant went on to state in the plaint that certain enquiries were held against him behind his back but the matter was number pursued and he was transferred to Bombay in February 1954.
By that memorandum he was informed about four matters and his explanation was called in that companynection.
