The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of services under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 requires prior payment or tender of salary and allowances in lieu of notice, and non-compliance with this requirement renders the termination ineffective.

1. The short question in this appeal is whether the termination of the services of the respondent by Ext.pl order dated 25-9-1968 with immediate effect is ineffective and in-operative in view of the provision in R.5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Ext. PI order stated thus:

"In pursuance of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of R.5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 I hereby terminate forthwith the services of Shri K. V Gopinath, Ty. Sorter H-R.O., Cochin 16 (name and designation) and directs that be shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of pay and allowances for a period of one month (in lieu of the period of notice) calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing them immediately before the date on which this order is served on or, as the case may be, tendered to him."

Rule 5 (1) of the Rules is in these terms:

"5. Termination of temporary service. (1) (a) The services of a 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 services 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."

It is admitted that on the 25th September, 1968 no payment of the salary and allowances was made or offered to the respondent. The respondent urged that the disbursing officer was intimated about Ext. P1 order only on the 28th September, 1968, and he was supplied with the necessary funds also only on that date. It is urged in the counter affidavit that one month's pay and allowances were sent by money order to the petitioner and that he did not receive it. At the time of the arguments, this contention was clarified with reference to the records made available to us. Including the sum of Rs. 60.30 said to be the excess amount paid on 28-9-68 a sum of Rs. 201 it is said was tendered to him, in view of the money order for Rs. 140.70 sent on 9-10-68. The respondent urged that the money order was not sent to his correct address and that in any view of the matter the sum of Rs. 201 does not represent the salary and allowances for the month due to him. According to him, the correct sum would be Rs. 208.50.

2. On the above facts, the learned judge in the judgment under appeal came to the conclusion on interpreting R.5 of the Rules that we have read that the termination of the services of the respondent by Ext. P1 is inoperative and ineffective. The learned judge relied on the decision of this Court in Bala¬gopalan v. State of Kerala reported in 1963 KLT.1167, that in The State of Bombay v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha reported in AIR 1960 SC. 610 and that in National Iron and Steel Company, Ltd. and others v. State of West Bengal and another reported in 1967 (2) LLJ 23 for the conclusion reached by him.

3. On behalf of the appellants, the Senior Superintendent in the RMS., Cochin and the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs, New Delhi, it is urged that the termination of the services by Ext. P1 order is valid and operative. It is contended that a prior or simultaneous payment is unnecessary. Counsel for the appellants relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dinanith Rai reported in (1969) II S. C. W. R.92 in support of the contention that a prior or even a simultaneous payment is unnecessary. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court had to construe a rule promulgated by the Governor of U. P. under the proviso to Art.309 of the Constitution of India r