Back
1970 Supreme(Gau) 73
Manipur High Court
R. S. BINDRA, J.
Nongmaithem Dhani Singh
Versus
Chief Commissioner, Manipur
Civil Writ Appln. No.1 of 1968
Decided On : 19-09-1970
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - TERMINATION OF SERVICE
Act Referred
Headnote
CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (TEMPORARY SERVICE) RULES, 1949 - RULE 3 - INTERPRETATION - CONDITIONS FOR ACQUIRING QUASI-PERMANENT STATUS - CONJUNCTIVE READING OF RULE 2(B) AND RULE 3 - DECLARATION BY APPOINTING AUTHORITY ESSENTIAL - SERVICE TERMINATION - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
N. Dhani Singh, a temporary Stenographer in the Manipur Secretariat, challenged the termination of his services by the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. He claimed that he had acquired the status of a quasi-permanent Government servant after serving for more than 3 years and that his termination violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner had not acquired the status of a quasi-permanent Government servant as he did not have a declaration from the appointing authority under Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949. The court interpreted Rule 3 conjunctively with Rule 2(b), which defines "quasi-permanent service," and held that both conditions must be fulfilled for a Government servant to be deemed in quasi-permanent service: (i) continuous Government service for more than three years, and (ii) a declaration by the appointing authority.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had acquired the status of a quasi-permanent Government servant by serving for more than 3 years without a declaration from the appointing authority under Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949? 2. Whether the termination of the petitioner's services violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, must be read conjunctively with Rule 2(b), which defines "quasi-permanent service." Both conditions in Rule 3 must be fulfilled for a Government servant to be deemed in quasi-permanent service: (i) continuous Government service for more than three years, and (ii) a declaration by the appointing authority. 2. The petitioner did not have a declaration from the appointing authority under Rule 3, and therefore, he had not acquired the status of a quasi-permanent Government servant. 3. The termination of the petitioner's services was valid as he was a temporary Government servant and his services could be terminated by one month's notice under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
M. Charu Gopal Singh, for Petitioner; N. Ibotomi Singh, Govt. Advocate, for Respondents.
2. The petitioner was temporarily appointed a Stenographer in the Manipur Secretariat on 1st of December, 1958. According to his allegations, his wife was taken seriously ill and so he prayed for leave sometime in March, 1967. That leave, it is said, was granted upto 23-3-1967: Thereafter, he applied for extension of leave upto 29-4-1967. Since his wife was recommended some major operation, which probably could not be done at Imphal, the petitioner left that station on 26-4-1967 for Dibrugarh in Assam. He happened to address another application to the Chief Secretary, before leaving for Dibrugarh, for extension of leave upto 31-5-1967. After the necessary treatment at Dibrugarh the petitioner returned to Imphal on 27-5-1967 and sent a copy of the medical certificate secured by him from the hospital at Dibrugarh to the Under Secretary at Imphal, apparently to justify his departure for Dibrugarh without permission to leave the station of his posting. Though the petitioner had enjoyed leave firstly from 24th of March to 29th of April, 1967, and then from 30th of April to 31st of May, 1967, without the same being first sanctioned, the Government ultimately, as a measure of good-will, granted him leave right upto 31-5-1967. The petitioner attended office on 1-6-1967 and on the 7th of June, as stated above, he received a notice from the Chief Secretary terminating his services.
3-4. The termination of his services was challenged on the following grounds outlined in Para. 7 of the writ petitions :
(1) The order terminating his services offends the provisions of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution inasmuch as he was a quasi-permanent Government servant and not a merely temporary employee;
(2) The juniors of the petitioner having been continued in service, the termination of his services offends the principles of natural justice; and
(3) The impugned order was mala fide. In their counter-affidavit the respondents, who are the Chief Commissioner of Manipur and Union of India, opposed the prayer made in the writ petition principally on the ground that the petitioner having been appointed as a temporary Stenographer his services could be terminated by a months notice in terms of Rule 5 (1) of the Rules. It was vehemently denied that the case fell within the ambit of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, or that any principles of natural justice had been violated, or that the order was mala fide.
5. The only point canvassed at the bar on behalf of the petitioner by his counsel Shri Charu Gopal Singh was that since the petitioner had been appointed on 1st December, 1958, and so by 7-6-1967 he had put in more than 3 years service, he had acquired by the latter date the status of a quasi-permanent employee and as such his services could not be dispensed with in terms of Rule 5. In support of that submission he placed reliance on the decision in G. Vasantha v. State of Nagaland, AIR 1969 Assam and Nagaland 3. A close study of that case would bring out that that it is clearly distinguishable from the one in hand on facts. The High Court reached the definite conclusion in the reported case that on the date
