G. T. NANAVATI, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant was appointed by the Deputy Salt Commissioner Ahmedabad as Inspector Or Salt by an order dated 29-8-1980. His appointment was temporary and on ad hoc basis till his replacement by a regular candi- date nominated by the Staff Selection Commission. His services were liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reasons. He resumed his duties on 15-9- 1980. He remained on leave from 21-9-1981 to 7-10-81. Thereafter he again remained on leave from 8- 10- 1981 to 12- 10- 1981 on the ground that his health was not good. He also applied for leave for a further period of 10 days i. e. from 13-10-1981 to 22-10-1981. As the medical certi- ficate produced by him in support of his application was not in the prescribed form he was asked to produce such a certificate. It appears from the record that even thereafter he did not remain present and remained on leave from 25-10-1981 to 1 On 21-1-1982 he was served with a notice under Rule 5 or the Central Civil Ser- vices (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 (hereafter referred to as the CCS. TS. Rules) whereby his services were terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date on which the notice was served upon him. It appears that (he notice was served upon him on the next day; and therefore the Assistant Salt Commissioner Jamnagar by a memorandum dated 22 declared that the services of the appellant were terminated with effect from that day. After giving a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure the appellant filed Civil Suit No. 3783 of 1982 in the City Civil Court Ahmedabad challenging the action of the respondents in terminating his services on the ground that it was il-legal arbitrary and mala fide. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit holding that termination of services of the appellant was in the nature of termination simpliciter and not by way of punishment; and that it was not proved that the services of the appeal- lant were terminated either mala fide or arbitrarily. The appellant has therefore filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge.

( 2 ) THREE contentions have been raised by Mr. Takwani the learned advocate for the appellant. He sub- mitted that termination of appellants services was really by way of punishment as it was based on irregularities memos issued by the authorities in this behalf and his unsuitability to hold the post on which he was working. In support of his contention Mr. Takwani invited my attention to the averments made in paragraph 7 of the Written Statement wherein it has been stated that during the short spell of service the appellant was found in the habit of taking leave frequently and had remained absent from duty unauthorisedly on many occasions for which he was served with memos several times. It is also stated in the said paragraph The plaintiffs performance during the short spell he attended to his duties was far from satisfactory. It is no doubt true that the respondents-defendants have tried to justify their action on those facts and the learned trial judge has also referred to them in his judg- ment. It is pertinent to note that these facts have been stated for the purpose of pointing out that the whole purpose of appointing the appellant by way of stop-gap arrangement was frustrated because of his irregular attendance. In paragraph 7 of the written statement itself it has been stated that the very purpose for which the plaintiff was appointed was defeated by his frequent absence with or without leave. As pointed out earlier the appellant was appointed on ad-hoc basis and only by way of a stop-gap arrangement i. e. till a regular candidate became available. (If during this short period he remained absent either because of his illness or for any other reason the work of the department naturally suffered. In his evidence the appellant has admitted that in his office at Salaya he was the only responsible p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document