Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.: The short question which arises in this appeal is whether the order passed by the Director of Postal Services on October 28, 1949, terminating the services of the appellant amounts to his dismissal under S. 240 (1) so as to attract the provisions of S. 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935.

2. The appellant was appointed as a temporary Second Division Clerk in the General Post Office, Lahore for a period of six months, on October 19, 1946. At the end of the initial period of six months, his appointment was continued from time to time until he was posted in the office of the Post Master General at Ambala, on August 12, 1947. Whilst he was working in that post, the impugned order was passed by which his services were terminated. That led to the present suit filed by the appellant on November 11, 1952 in which he claimed a declaration that the termination of his services was illegal on the ground that Rule 126 of the Posts and Telegraphs Manual Vol. II General Regulations, had been contravened, and no enquiry had been held against him after furnishing him with a charge-sheet in that behalf. It is from this suit that the present appeal arises.

3. The claim made by the appellant was disputed by the respondent, the Union of India on several grounds. It was alleged that the appellant was a temporary servant and as no declaration had been made in his favour that he had acquired the status of quasi-permanent servant, it was urged that his services could be terminated on a month s notice in terms of his contract. In such a case, no enquiry was required to be held and no charge-sheet had to be supplied to the appellant.

4. The respondent also averred that prior to the discharge of the appellant a complaint had been received in July, 1949, from one Sham Lal which led to an enquiry in respect of the conduct of the appellant. Sham Lal had alleged that he had posted 4 reply-paid post cards to the Post Master General, Ambala in connection with a claim application for National and Defence Certificates originally registered in Pakistan; he, however, received no reply to the said letters except a bare acknowledgment. On July, 7, 1949 Sham Lal received a reply written on a portion of one of his reply postcards: the contents showed that the said card was written by Vishwa Mitter, the brother of the appellant, to his mother. Vishwa Mitter had failed to score off the address of the original sender written on the post card, and so, it was delivered to Sham Lal instead of the mother of Vishwa Mitter. In the course of investigation that followed, Vishwa Mitter admitted that he had written the said post card to his mother using for that purpose the reply paid card sent by Sham Lal.

5. The Sub-Judge at Ambala who tried the suit held that since the appellant was a temporary government servant, his services could be terminated without holding any enquiry and that the provisions of S. 240 (3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 were, therefore inapplicable and so, he dismissed the appellant s suit. The appellant appealed against the said decree and his appeal was allowed by the learned District Judge at Ambala. The learned District Judge at Amabla. The learned District Judge held that the order passed against the appellant was one of dismissal, and so, it attracted the provisions of S. 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935. He found that the said provisions had not been complied with and so, he held that the order of dismissal passed against the appellant was invalid.

6. This decision of the learned District Judge was challenged by the respondent by preferring an appeal before the Punjab High Court. Capoor J. who heard this appeal upheld the pleas raised by the respondent and came to the conclusion that the order passed against the appellant was no more than a mere order of discharge, and so, it fell outside the purview of S. 240(3). In the result, the appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed and the appellant s sui