JUDGMENT - (1) The petitioner in this case was in service of the Education Department of the Government of Bombay on or about 6th December 1948. According to the petitioner, he was made permanent on the expiry of the probationary period. In about 1950, the petitioner was transferred as a clerk in the office of the Educational Inspector, Ahmednagar, where he served for about a year. The petitioner was then re-transferred to Sangamner and at the latter place he worked in the office of the Principal, Training College for men for about three years. The petitioner was again transferred to the office of the Educational Inspector, Ahmednagar and the petitioners next assignment was that of a clerk in the Government Girls School, Ahmednagar, where the petitioner worked for about seven or eight months. In April 1956, the petitioner was again posted as a clerk in the office of the Principal, Training College for men at Sangamner.

(2) It appears that while the petitioner was working at the place, the petitioner was alleged to have committed an offence of forgery. It would appear that the explanation of the petitioner was then taken and the petitioner admitted his guilt. But the petitioner now disputes that he ever admitted having committed the offence of forgery. On the 27th of May 1957 a notice of discharge was given to the petitioner and it is in the following terms:-

"As per D. E., Poonas instructions covered in his No. S-26(d)-B of 3rd May 1957 you are hereby given one months notice of discharge and further informed that your services will be terminated with effect from 30th June 1957".

The petitioner worked in the office until 29th June 1957 when he was informed that he should suppose himself as discharged from service from 29th June 1957 after office hours. It is the correctness of the order made on the 27th of May 1957 which is challenged on behalf of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution and the contention taken on behalf of the petitioner is that the order of discharge, dated the 27th of May 1957 amounts, in effect, to an order of dismissal and since in the case of an order of dismissal a Government servant cannot be dismissed without complying with the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, the order of discharge is invalid. Although the petitioner stated in his petition that he was made permanent after the expiry of the probationary period, it is now conceded by Mr. Namjoshi appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was not a permanent Government servant and we will proceed with the petition upon the looting that the petitioner was a temporary servant and not a permanent one.

(3) On behalf of the opponents, a preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Chandrachud and his contention is that this petition must be dismissed in limine on the ground that there has been gross delay in presenting this petition. The facts in that connection are briefly these: The order of discharge is dated the 27th of May 1957 and the petition was filed in this Court on the 25th of October 1957 i.e. after a period of five months. In the petition, as originally filed, the petitioner had averred that the petitioner did not file this petition earlier, because he was lying ill, was confused and had no sufficient funds to take legal advice and pursue the matter. He also averred that the petitioner was lying ill, suffering from flu which prevailed in virulent form. But the delay which occurred in presenting the petition was explained by him in an affidavit filed by him on the 16th of November 1957. In that affidavit the petitioner stated that after the order of discharge became effective, he made efforts to persuade the authorities to withdraw the order of discharge. He also stated that the authorities were not persuaded to withdraw the order of discharge as a result of which he received a shock and was in a confused state of mind for some two or three weeks. He then stated that he had an attack of flu which made him bed-r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document