In reply it was stated by the Government that the claim for gratuity companyld number be entertained in view of the fact that the appellants services were terminated for gross misconduct.
Thus it was in August, 1963 that the appellant discovered that his services were really determined for gross misconduct.
In 1957, while he was in charge of the Wagerganj Godown a companyplaint of bribery was made against him.
On December 2, 1963 he submitted a fresh memorandum to the Government.
87 of 1960 1958 in the Patna High Court but that Petition was dismissed on 21 1 1960 presumably because a statement was made on behalf of the State Government that the appellant was number removed for misconduct but his ser vices being temporary were terminated by a simple order of discharge.
On September 28, 1958 the appellant filed Writ Petition No.
By an order dated September 27, 1966 the High Court dismissed the Petition summarily on the ground that it wag filed after an abnormal delay.
For nearly 3 years thereafter he kept on submitting one memorandum after another to the Government and it was number until late in 1966 that he filed a Writ Petition in the High Court to challenge the order of removal.
The appellant thereafter made a representation to the Government asking that his case be reviewed and that he be paid gratuity.
He received a reply to his representation on August 17, 1963 in which it was stated that his ser vices were terminated for gross misconduct.
The appellant thereafter submitted further memorials to the Government and on September 23, 1966 he filed the present Writ Petition in the High Court.
An inquiry was held into that companyplaint but eventually the appellant was removed from service by an order dated September 16, 1958.
The appellant was appoint ed as a Supply Inspector in 1948.
V. Chandrachud, J. This appeal is founded on a certificate granted by the Patna High Court under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution.
