Tahvildars are not Government servants and are not entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution.

S. S. DHAVAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of an order of the Collector of Fatehpur disapproving of the re-employment of the petitioner as a Tahvildar. The petitioner also asks for an order directing his re-instatement as a Tahvildar. The facts, as alleged in the affidavit supporting the peiition, are these: the petitioner was appointed a Tahvildar by the Government Treasurer, Fatehpur on 14-1-1949. He was involved in an embezzlement case which led to his prosecution. This resulted in the discharge of the petitioner and the termination of his appointment as Tahvildar. Subsequently the learned Magistrate, who tried the criminal case held that the petitioner was not technically guilty of any offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and discharged him. He, however, observed that the conduct of the petitioner might afford good ground for any departmental action against him.

( 2 ) AFTER he had been discharged in the criminal case the petitioner made an application for his re-instatement as Tahvildar. The application was forwarded by the Government Treasurer, but the Collector, in the exercise of his powers under R. 47 of the Sub-Treasury Manual refused to approve of his re-employment. Consequently the Government Treasurer did not re-employ him. Aggrieved by the decision of the Collector withholding his approval, the petitioner has come to this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Con-stitution.

( 3 ) THE petition is opposed by the State and a counter-affidavit has been filed. It is denied that the petitioner is a Government servant or entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. It is stated on behalf of the State that Tahvildars are not Government servants. No Character Roll of Tahvildars is maintained. It is conceded by the State that the Collector refused to accord his approval for the petitioners re-employment, but it is contended that the petitioner was not removed from his post by any order of the Collector, who merely withheld his approval of his re-appointment. According to the State the petitioners services were terminated by his own employer that is, the Government Treasurer.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, Miss N. A. Rahman, who argued this case with great force and ability, submitted the following arguments:

( 5 ) THE petitioner was the holder of a civil post under the State within the meaning of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution. Therefore, he could not have been removed from his post without having been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him.

( 6 ) MISS Rahman relied upon a decision of Mehrotra, J. in the case of Audh Narain Singh v. Collector, AIR 1957 All 779. In that case the learned Judge held that a Tahvildar, though employed by the Treasurer, is under the control of the State Government and is therefore, entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution. As the judgment of the learned Judge did not contain a full statement of the facts relating to that case, I sent for the file and perused the affidavits in that case. The petitioner in that case was a Tahvildar. There were some complaints against him. The Collector directed the Government Treasurer to replace the man. Consequently one day he was told, when he went to the Treasury, that orders had been received for his removal and that he should give charge of his office to another person. The Tahvildar then filed the writ petition which was allowed by the learned Judge. The petition was opposed by the State and a counter-affidavit was filed. It was stated therein that Tahvildars are not Government servants, and that the post of Tahvildar had been abolished by an order dated 25th July 1927. (This obviously meant that the post of Tahvildar, as a Government post was abolished ). It was further stated in the counter-affidavit of the State that, before the decision to abolish the post, T