SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1958 Supreme(Cal) 157

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Mallick
RANJIT KUMAR CHAKRAVARTY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Suit 2433  Of  1955
Decided On : JUNE 2, 1958

Termination of service of a government employee who has no right to the post, such as a provisional or officiating appointment, does not amount to punishment or penalty unless there is something more than mere termination of service, such as disobedience of an order of a superior officer.

Headnote:

WEST BENGAL FIRE SERVICE - Termination of service - Plaintiff was appointed as a Station Officer in 1945, which was a temporary department. In 1950, the West Bengal Fire Service Directorate was created and the plaintiff was provisionally selected for the office of a Sub-Officer. However, a review committee found him unsuitable and his service was terminated on the ground of unsuitability. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that the order terminating his service was void and for recovery of arrears of salary and other reliefs. The court held that the plaintiff did not have a right to the post as it was provisional and the termination of service was not by way of punishment. Hence, Article 311 of the Constitution was not attracted and the suit was dismissed.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff was appointed as a Station Officer in the Bengal Fire Service in 1945, which was a temporary department. After partition, he opted for service under the Government of West Bengal and was provisionally appointed as a Sub-Officer in the West Bengal Fire Service Directorate in 1950. However, a review committee found him unsuitable and his service was terminated on the ground of unsuitability. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that the order terminating his service was void and for recovery of arrears of salary and other reliefs.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the plaintiff did not have a right to the post as it was provisional and the termination of service was not by way of punishment. Hence, Article 311 of the Constitution was not attracted and the suit was dismissed.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had a right to the post of Sub-Officer in the West Bengal Fire Service Directorate? 2. Whether the termination of service was by way of punishment? 3. Whether Article 311 of the Constitution was attracted in the instant case?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff did not have a right to the post as it was provisional and the termination of service was not by way of punishment. Hence, Article 311 of the Constitution was not attracted and the suit was dismissed.

Final Decision: The suit was dismissed.

MALLICK, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is still a member of the West Bengal Fire Service, for recovery of arrears of salary and for other reliefs.

( 2 ) DURING the war in 1943, Bengal Fire Service was created by the Government of Bengal, it was a part of the A. K. P. Organisation of the Civil Defence branch. The plaintiff was appointed a Station Officer, Bengal Fire Service for Barisal. He was to be on probation for three months and was to be confirmed to the post on the expiry of the term, provided his work was found to be satisfactory. The department was temporary and the plaintiff's office could not but be temporary. In December 1945, he was confirmed as a Station Officer, Barisal, till 38-2-1956. His term of appointment was extended from time to time. After the partition of Bengal, the plaintiff opted for service under the Government of West Bengal and by a telegram dated 10-9-1947, by the Regional Officer, Barrackpore, the plaintiff was directed to appear before the Director of Posting. It appears from a Circular Memorandum issued by the Chief Secretary of the West Bengal Government, that the postings of those officers, who have opted for West Bengal were to be tentative till they are finally absorbed. The policv of the Government in that behalf was yet to be formulated. These officers, however, were allowed to draw their old pay. The period of all temporary posts was extended by a Notification dated 26-9-1947, till 1-11-1947. The plaintiff was appointed a temporary Sub-Officer from 1-10-1947 in the Calcutta Fire Service and posted at Central Avenue Station. By a Notification dated 25-11-1947, the Government extended the period of temporary officers till 29-2-1948. By an order dated 21-4-1950, a number of provisional appointments were made by the Director of West Bengal Fire Service. The plaintiff was by this order provisionally appinted Sub-Officer, Lillooah. In or about this period, the West Bengal Fire Service Directorate was created under the West Bengal Fire Service Act passed and published on 30-3-1950. From a Memo dated 29-4-1950, issued from the office of the Director, Fire, Service, it appears that the various offices under the said Directorate would be filled up with effect from 18-4-1950, by various persons in the existing personnel. From the list annexed to the Memo it appears that the plaintiff was provisionally selected for the office of a Sub-Officer and an intimation to that effect was given to the plaintiff by a communication dated 4-5-1950. Prior to this provisional selection, the plaintiff was required to appear before a Selection Committee, set up by the Government. It appears that another Committee was appointed to review the appointment. This Committee found the plaintiff unsuitable. On 30-6-1950 notice was served on the plaintiff that his service would be terminated on the expiry of July, 1950. By the same letter the plaintiff was offered an office of lower rank, acceptance of which must be intimated before 8-7-1950. The plaintiff did not intimate his acceptance of the office of lower rank. The plaintiff naturaly felt aggrieved by the decision of the Government contained in the notice of 30-6-1950 and made representations for reconsideration. The plaintiff not having intimated his decision to accept office of lower rank, the plaintiff was informed by a letter of 3-8-1950, that he had been discharged from West Bengal Fire Service from 1-8-1950. Thereafter the plaintiff addressed various appeals and representations and not having received any satisfaction, ultimately filed this suit on 20-8-1955.

( 3 ) IN the plaint after setting out the facts, the plaintiff contended that the order terminating service was void, being in violation or the Constitution and it was a case of mala fide exercise of power. The substantial reliefs claimed are: (i) a declaration that the order dated 3-8-1950 purporting to dismiss the plaintiff from the said West Bengal Fire Service was void an




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top