In appeal, the Additional District Judge, Delhi, reversed the decree passed by the Court of First Instance, and declared that the order of Mr. Kane dated January 10, 1958, terminating the employ ment of Nanak Singh was void and inoperative, and that Nanak Singh was entitled to be treated as in service and on duty since the date of the order.
136 of the Constitution was rejected.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 29, 1966 of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi in Regular Second Appeal No.
Against that order, with special leave, the Union of India has appealed to this Court.
Gurdev Singh, J., upheld both the grounds and granted the petition.
The High Court of punjab in appeal reversed that order and directed that the petition be dis missed.
This suit was dismissed by the Court of First Instance.
74 D of 1966.
Sen, R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant.
226 of the Constitution for an order declaring that the determination of his employment was void, illegal and unconstitutional on two grounds 1 that the order terminating the employment amounted to imposing punishment and companyld number be made without affording opportunity to the employee to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and 2 that Mr. Kane was number companypetent under r. 5 of the Central Civil Services Temporary Services Rules, 1949 to terminate his employment.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
218 of 1963 in the Court of the Senior Sub Judge, Delhi, for a declaration that the order terminating his employment was made by an authority lower than the authority companypetent to pass that order, and that the order was wanting in bona fides and was on that account illegal, null and void, and for an order declaring him entitled to be treated as companytinuing in employment and on duty and entitled to all the benefits of service as if he had number been removed from employment.
Nanak Singh then moved the High Court of Punjab by a peti tion under Art.
280 of 1967.
Nanak Singh thereafter instituted suit No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. Nanak Singh respondent in this appeal held in August 1957 the post of Field Inspector in the Office of the Custodian, Evacuee Property, Delhi, as a temporary employee.
Pritam Singh Safeer, for the respondent.
The order of Mr. Kane was companyfirmed in appeal.
By order dated January 10, 1958, K. S. Kane, Additional Settlement Commissioner who was also holding the office of Additional Custodian terminated the employment of the respondent after giving him one months salary in lieu of numberice.
A second appeal against that judgment by the Union of India was dismissed by Bedi, J. The learned Judge was of the view that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in the writ petition did number operate to prevent Nanak Singh from reagitating the question about the authority of Mr. Kane to terminate his employment, and that on the materials placed before the Court there was numberevidence that authority had been delegated to Mr. Kane to exercise that power.
A petition preferred to this Court against the order of the High Court for leave to appeal under Art.
