The termination of service of a temporary government servant under Rule 14 (c) of the Revised Leave Rules, 1933, for unauthorized absence from duty without leave is not a dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank under Article 311 of the Constitution and does not require the safeguards provided therein.

P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application by Anil Nath De for a writ of mandamus or certiorari in respect of an order of the Assistant Collector of Excise, dated the 16th April, 1956 and an order of the Collector of Central Excise, dated the 7th May, 1956.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was a temporary Upper Division Clerk. He was transferred to Kalimpong in June 1949 in the normal course. Ha applied thereupon for leave on the ground of illness. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kalimpong directed him to appear before the Staff Surgeon for medical examination. On examination the petitioner was found fit to carry out the duties and to join the duties on the 11th July 1949. But instead of joining his duties the petitioner applied on the 12th July, 1949 for an extension of leave for three more weeks. He was again medically examined by a Staff Surgeon on the 2nd December, 1949, when this time the Staff Surgeon found him unfit to resume his duties. It was however found on the scrutiny of the service book and the leave account of the petitioner that he had exhausted all the leave that was due to him and the extraordinary leave granted to him exceeded 90 days on the 11th October, 1949. He was, therefore, regarded as having ceased to be in the employment under rule 14 (c) of the Revised Leave Rules 1933. He was discharged from service with effect from the 11th October, 1949. The petitioner was in the department for 5 years by that time.

( 3 ) ON purely compassionate grounds the petitioner was offered an officiating temporary post of Upper Division Clerk in the scale of Es. 80-5-120 etc. plus other allowances. This appointment was made on the 10th January, 1950. It is this appointment which came to a termination and against which the present petition was made. The petitioner assumed charge of his duties on the 31st January, 1950. His appointment as a temporary Upper Division Clerk was treated as a re-employment and his pay was accordingly fixed at the minimum of the time scale of Upper Division Clerk, that is Rs. 80/- per month. The petitioner passed his departmental examination of his grade in December, 1951. He could not however be declared "quasi-permanent" under the rules because by the 1st July, 1953 he was already more than 28 years old. When the petitioner was reappointed on the 31st January, 1950 his age was 30 years 1 month. When he became qualified for declaration as "quasi-permanent" he was already 33 years 6 months. The petitioner therefore remained a temporary hand and rule 14 (c) of the Revised Leave Rules 1933 continued to be applicable to him.

( 4 ) THE relevant chapter of the petitioner's complaint begins when he was ordered to be transferred to Cooch Behar. He submitted a representation supported by a medical certificate praying for the cancellation of the order of transfer again on the ground of ill health. This application could not be granted and the petitioner was relieved of his duties at Calcutta on the 11th August, 1955 to join at Cooch Behar. Instead of proceeding to Cooch Behar he submitted a petition on the 22nd August, 1955 for reconsideration of his case of transfer. He was thereupon directed to produce a medical certificate from the Staff Surgeon, Calcutta about his fitness or unfitness to serve in Cooch Behar. Thereupon the petitioner was asked to join his duties at Cooch Behar on the 9th September, 1955. The petitioner still refused. He did not resume his duties and he applied for leave. The petitioner had only 75 day's earned leave and 60 days' half-pay leave to his credit on 12-8-1955. As the petitioner was a temporary Government servant and he had not in fact returned to duty, no half-pay leave was admissible to him in terms of Rule 12 (a) of the Revised Leave Rules. The petitioner applied for earned leave for one month with effect from 21-0-1955 and thereafter asked for an extension of 61 days' leave with effect from 21-9-1955 to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Cooch Behar. He re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document