( 1 ) THE appellant was serving as a temporary M. V. Mechanic skilled in the post and Telegraph Motor Service, Calcutta. A police case was started against him. The senior Manager of the Motor Service placed him under suspension in the exercise of his powers under Rule 10 (1) of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. On the 21st September 1970, the order of suspension was revoked and on that date the senior Manager in pursuance of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rues, 1965 terminated his services and directed that he would be paid the sum equivalent to the amount of pay and allowance for the period of one month in lieu of the period of notice. The appellant made representations against the order but did not succeed.

( 2 ) THE appellant obtained this Rule challenging his termination of service by the aforesaid order of the 21st September, 1970. The Rule ultimately came up for hearing before Mr. Justice Chittatosh Mokerjee. His Lordship by his judgment and order dated the 20th January, 1972, has discharged the Rule. This appeal is directed against the said judgment and order.

( 3 ) IT is common case that the appellant was a temporary Government Servant who was not in quasi-permanent service. The respondent's case is, as we have said, that his service had been terminated under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Rule 5 is as follows: -" (5) (1) (a) - The service of temporary Government servant who is not in quasi-permanent service shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant: (b) The period of such notice shall be one month ; provided that the service of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith by payment to him of a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services or as the case may be for the period by which such notice falls short of one month. "

( 4 ) IT is urged on behalf of the respondents that the order of termination under challenge is not hit by the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. It is not a case of dismissal as contemplated by the said Sub-Article. Before the order was passed, a review was made of the entire service career of the appellant and it was found that he was unsuitable for the post. That is why, according to the respondents, his services were terminated by the aforesaid order.

( 5 ) WHEN the application was heard before Mr. Justice Chittatosh Mookerjee, his Lordship looked into the relevant records and directed that two papers from the appellant's personal file be produced and marked as Exhibits X and Y. Ext. X is a report of the Deputy Manager to the Senior Manager. This report deals with the case of the appellant and another officer called Asfaque Ahmed. It refers to the incident of the theft of a radiator on the 23rd August, 1970, as well as to previous service records of the officers concerned. Towards the concluding portion the Deputy Manager states:"under the above circumstances we may come to the conclusion that these two officials for their records of bad character and conduct and for their involvement in such a serious offence of stealing the Government properties have rendered themselves unsuitable for further retention in service for the sake of maintaining the discipline in the organization and may perhaps be weeded out from service as early as possible * * *"the report of the Deputy Manager was made on the 19th September, 1970. The senior Manager considered the report on the 20th September, 1970 and Ext. Y is the record of the findings made by the Senior Manager. We quote below the relevant extracts from Ext. Y : *** *** *** that Sarvashri Kanjilal and Asfaque Ah

Click Here to Read the rest of this document