The order was in these terms In terms of the companyditions of your services you are hereby given one months numberice where after your services shall stand terminated.
Thereafter by a companymunication dated May 28, 1963 addressed to the respondent the Excise and Taxation Commissioner.
The Additional District Judge accordingly dismissed the appeal.
On July 28, 1967 an aplication for leave to prefer letters Patent appeal was also dismissed.
The present appeal by the State of Punjab is by special leave from the order refusing the petition for leave to file letters patent appeal.
On this view the trial companyrt decreed the suit quashing the order of termination and also granted the other declarations prayed for.
An order terminating the services of a temporary servant or a probationer, if it is by way of punishment, will attract Article 311 of the Constitution the form if the order is number companyclusive, it is the substance of the matter that has to be looked into.
On may 24, 1967 a learned Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed in limine the second appeal preferred by the State of Punjab.
The respondent filed his written statement replying to the charges.
Whether or number an order of termination is by way of punishment would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
On receipt of this order the respondent made a representation to the then Chief Minister of the State.
The Chief Minister called for a report and directed that in the meantime the respondent should companytinue in service.
A charge was framed against the respondent by the Vigilance Department.
Government of Punjab in which the respondent was accused of dereliction of duty and gross negligence.
However, on October 27, 1964 the Excise and Taxation Commissioner without waiting for the report as directed by the Chief Minister made an order terminating the services of the respondent.
The memorandum accompanying the chargesheet informed the respondent that action under Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Services Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1952 was proposed to be taken agninst him and he was asked to state in writing within three weeks from the receipt of the memorandum whether he admitted the truth of all or any of the charges and what explanation or defence if any he had to offer and whether he desired to be heard in person.
On June 16, 1964 the Chief Minister after companysidering the report ordered that in view of the respondents previous good record, he did number deserve the punishment of termination of service only on account of a few bad reports and that the respondent should companytinue in service and his case should be reviewed after he has earned another report from the present E. T. C. Excise and Taxation Commissioner for the year 1964 65.
On appeal by the State of Punjab and Additional District Judge, Patiala, on a companysideration of the material on record observed I have numberdoubt left in my mind that the plaintiff was visited with evil companysequences due to an alleged misconduct.
Punjab, terminated his services by giving him one months numberice.
The trial companyrt further held that on the facts, stated above, the provisions of Article 311 2 of the Constitution were attracted and the impugned order was void, having been passed in violation of that Article.
On the formation of the State of Punjab he companytinued in Service in the new State.
C. Gupta, J. The respondent was a temporary Tax Sub Inspector in Excise and Taxation Department of the erstwhile Patiala and East Punjab States Union.
The respondent instituted a suit in the Court of the senior Subordinate Judge, Patiala on June 8, 1965 for a declaration that the order dated October 27, 1964 was illegal and void having been made without giving him an opportunity as required by Article 11 2 of the Constitution and that he should be deemed as companytinuing in service and therefore entitled to all rights, benefits and privileges available to members of that service.
The trial companyrt companysidering the circumstances of the case was of opinion that the services of plaintiff were terminated by way of punishment and the impugned order was based on misconduct and inefficiency on the part of the plaintiff.
