It is against this judgment and decree that the present appeal has been pre ferred by the State of U.P. Mr. Dixit, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has urged that the High Court acted illegally in reversing the companycurrent findings of fact arrived at by the companyrts below and quashing the impugned order which was a simple order of termination of the respondents services and had been validly passed in accordance with the rules relat ing to temporary Government servants and the companytract of service.
on May 16, 1954.
While oversetting the companycurrent findings of fact ar rived at by the companyrts below and decreeing the respondents aforesaid suit, the learned single Judge went through the official companyrespondence preceding the passing of the im pugned order and observed that a close scrutiny of the facts on record showed that the order was passed by way of punish ment on the basis of the enquire proceedings and as a result of the recommendation made by the Executive Engineer fol lowed by the direction issued by the Chief Engineer that the respondent should be suitably punished.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 3 1 75 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
The respondent attempted to have the above order re scinded by making representations to the Chief Engineer, and the Minister of Irrigation, U.P. which proved abortive.
The Superintending Engineer thereafter issued orders terminating the services of both the clerks.
The suit was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the respondent was only a temporary hand that under the companytract of service as also the rules applicable to tempo rary Government servants, the respondent was liable to be discharged any time even though an enquiry in respect of a charge of misconduct might have been insti tuted against him and that the impugned order number having been passed a measure of punishment but being a simple order of termination of the respondents services without casting any stigma on him or visiting him with evil companyse quences, was valid both under the aforesaid rules and the companytract of service.
The Chief Engineer wrote back to the Superintending Engineer asking him to award suitable punishment to the aforesaid two clerks.
The respondent thereupon challenged the aforesaid order of termination of his services by instituting the aforesaid suit averring inter alia that the order number being an order of termination of his service simpliciter but being one passed by way of punishment, attracted the applicability of Article 311 of the Constitution which number having been company plied with rendered the order void and ineffective, in law.
sd S.P. Sahni, Superintending Engineer.
He obtained the explanation of both the clerks and reported the matter to the Superintend ing Engineer of his Division.
On July 12.
The order that was passed in respect of and served on the respondent ran as follows No.
Both the Courts found that the impugned order was valid in law as it was a simple order of termination of service and number having been passed by way of punishment, it did number attract the provisions of Article 311 2 of the Constitu tion.
1961, an optional typewriting test was held by the Department.
E 70/IV/259 Dated Jhansi, November 29, 1961 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Shri Ram Chandra Trivedi, Temporary Routine Grade Clerk is hereby served with one months numberice to the effect that his services shall number be required after one month from the date of receipt of this Notice.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Considering the explanations tendered by the clerks to be unsatisfactory, the Superin tending Engineer brought the matter to the numberice of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Lucknow.
2147/ as arrears of pay and dearness allowance from the appellant.
The facts leading to this appeal are The respondent herein was appointed as a temporary clerk in Gur Sarain Canal Division, Jhansi.
Seven years later, he was required to appear in a departmental examination which was held in July, 1961.
258/76.
2261/66.
In that test the Executive Engineer, Investigation and Planning Division, Jhansi, it is alleged, detected Gopal Deo Santiya, a clerk of Bhander Canal Division, attempting to personate and appear for the respondent.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the respondont took the matter in appeal to the Second Additional Civil Judge, Jhansi, who affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
Promod Swarup and Manoj Swarup, for the Respondent.
N. Dikshit and O.P. Rana, for the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with these judgments, the respondent preferred a second appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Allhabad, which as already stated was allowed by a learned Single Judge of that Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree dated January 3, 1975, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad setting aside the judgment and decree dated July 27, 1965, of the Second Additional Civil Judge, Jhansi, whereby the latter affirmed the judg ment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the respond ents suit for declaration that order dated November 29, 1961, passed by the Superintending Engineer, Circle IV, Irrigation Works, Jhansi, U.P. terminating the services of the respondent was void and ineffective in law and he was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.
The grounds of attack made against the impugned order did number find favour with the trial Court which dismissed the suit.
