KAN SINGH, J.—This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by petitioner Ishwariprasad Atri, who was holding the post of an Overseer on a temporary basis, challenging the order of termination of his services dated 31-12-62, on the ground that the same is violative of articles 311 (2) of the Constitution.

2. The petitioner was in the service of the former Jaipur State as an Overseer in the Public Works Department. Sometime in the year 1946, he was involved in a case of bribery and as a result of the prosecution launched against him he was sentenced to imprisonment for one year in January, 1949. It seems that when Rajasthan was formed he was serving out the sentence of imprisonment. On his release from jail sometime in the year 1950, the petitioner started working as a Public Works Contractor and continued to work as a Contractor till 12-4-56, when he was appointed as an Overseer in The Civil Division of the Electrical and Mechanical Department, Rajasthan. He worked in that capacity till 23-4-57, when he left the job to join the Sugar Mills at Ganganagar. There, he was appointed on a salary of Rs. 295/-. On account of his domestic difficulties, however, he had to leave the job. He then joined the Public Works Department, Rajasthan on daily wage basis, as a Mistri. Thereafter, after obtaining recommendation from the Inspector General of Prisons about his good conduct he secured the job of an Overseer in the office of the Executive Engineer (Building and Roads) Planning Division, Jaipur. The rule about the age for first entry into Government service was also relaxed in favour of the petitioner, and on account of his past experience he was given four advance increments as an Overseer. While the was working as an Overseer, a question was raised in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly about the advisability of his appointment under the State on the ground that he had been convicted of an offence of bribery while he was working as an Overseer in the former Jaipur State. It appears that, thereafter the Government decided to terminate his services, as they realised that it was not proper to have employed a man convicted for corruption. Accordingly, the Chief Engineer (Building and Roads) Rajasthan, who was the appointing authority, terminated the services of the petitioner on 3.12.62 (vide Ex.5). The petitioner challenges the validity of this order on the ground that this order is really one of dismissal as it puts a stigma on his character and debars him from further employment under the State. It is urged that, though in outward shape and form the order is one of termination of services, but in reality it is one of dismissal and consequently bad.

3. The writ petition has been opposed by the State and it is submitted that the impugned order is one of termination of services of a temporary employee and the action has been taken in accordance with Rule 23 ( A ) of the Rajasthan Service Rules.

4. The only point that, therefore, arises for consideration in the case is, whether the impugned order Ex-5, is one of termination of services of a temporary employee under Rule 23 (a) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, or is one of dismissal as contended by the petitioner, passed in violation of the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The order is a short one, and may be reproduced hereunder: "The services of Shri I.P. Atri, Overseer, Assistant Engineers office B. & R., City SubDivision No.VI, Jaipur are hereby terminated with effect from 31.12.1962 afternoon."

5. The principles that should govern the matter are now well settled by several decisions of the Supreme Court. It has been laid down authoritatively by their Lordships in Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India (1) that the words "dismissed", "removed" and "reduced in rank", as used in connection with any action, taken against a Government servant denote the three major punishments. The protection of Article 311 is available only when in truth and reality any o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document