ORDER :- This is a petition under Art.. 226 of the Constitution by one R.N. Mohindra, one time employee of the respondent, the State of Himachal Pradesh, in the medical department, whose services were terminated by an order of the Directtor of Health Services dated 26-3-1951, for a writ of mandamus and such other directions as may be deemed fit to the respondent for restoration of the petitioner to the office of the Head Clerk in the medical department of the State and for payment to him, of arrears of his emoluments till toe date of his reinstatement. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State.

2. It appears that the petitioner was appointed a Head Clerk in the medical department of the former Sirmur State on six months probation in June 1944 and confirmed on that post on 6-3-1945. After formation of Himachal Pradesh, which took place on 15-4-1948, the petitioners services were continued in the medical department by the respondent. One of the points urged by the petitioner is that the respondent will be deemed to have retained his services as a permanent Head Clerk in the medical department. It is however not necessary to go into that question since it would be material only if his reinstatement were to be ordered.

3. After certain charges had been levelled against the petitioner, with the reasonability or otherwise of which charges this Court is not concerned, the petitioner was reduced in rank with effect from 1-6-1959 by an order dated 14-5-1950. Subsequently, he was suspended by an order dated 27-1-1951, and on 9-2-1951 a notice was issued to him to show cause why his services be not terminated within a week of the receipt of the notice. Reference was made in this notice to the allegedly past improper conduct of the petitioner leading to his reduction in rank and to his subsequent misconduct in October 1950 and immediately before the issue of notice. At the end it was stated that as in spite of previous warnings the petitioner had not taken care to reform himself it was proposed to terminate his services, but that before such action was taken he was being given an opportunity of showing cause against it. As already stated, the services of the petitioner were terminated by an order dated 26-3-1951.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the removal of his client from service was wrongful in that the provisions of R.55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and of Art.311 of the Constitution had not been complied with. The two provisions just cited require the official concerned to be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him before he is either dismissed, removed or reduced in rank. The learned counsel also argued that the aforesaid notice dated 9-2-1951 was defective since the petitioner was not only asked thereby to show cause but it even mentioned the punishment sought to be imposed upon him. He also argued that there was no mention in the notice whether the petitioner desired to be heard in person, as required by R.55. It was also contended that the aforesaid order of termination of services was passed without holding any inquiry.

5. Now, there is no doubt that if the present petitioners services have been terminated in contravention of the said provisions, he has a legal right to come to this Court for appropriate relief under Art.226 of the Constitution, and the mere facts that he has the alternative remedy of a suit, or that the action taken by him in this Court was a delayed one, would by themselves be no ground for denying him that relief. But, as held in a ruling cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself, i.e., in - Ram Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1952 Pat 194 (A), it is essential that the alleged legal right should have been actually violated. That cannot be said to have happened in the present case. And this appears from facts disclosed in the respondents reply in this

Click Here to Read the rest of this document