A person employed by a treasurer, who is himself an employee of the State Government, is also an employee of the State Government and entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari or any direction in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the order of removal of the petitioner and also the order passed by the Commissioner dated the 26th of October 1956, continuing the order of removal of the petitioner. It is further prayed that a writ of mandamus or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued to the opposite parties to treat the applicant as a tahvildar in the sub-treasury at Lal-ganj in the district of Azamgarh.

( 2 ) THE facts which are necessary for the appreciation of the points urged, are that the petitioner was appointed as tahvildar in the year 1949 in the Azamgarh treasury. Tahvildars are employed in the cash department of the treasuries of the Government On the 20th April 1956, when the petitioner went to the treasury, he was told by the Tahsildar that his services were terminated and that he should give charge of his office to Shri Radhey Shyam Aganwal and consequently the petitioner gave charge of the office. A representation was sent by the petitioner against that order of removal to the Collector, azamgarh, and when no reply was received to that representation, the petitioner sent another representation to the Commissioner of Gorakhpur Division. The Tahsildar also sent the report to the Collector to the effect that he had asked the petitioner to hand over charge of his office. On the 26th of October 1956, the petitioner received an intimation rejecting his representation. The present petition was filed in this Court on the 10th of January 1957. It is this order of removal of the petitioner passed by the District Magistrate and confirmed by the Commissioner in appeal, that has been challenged by means of this writ petition.

( 3 ) THE main contention raised by the petitioner is that he is a civil employee of the State government and consequently entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution.

( 4 ) NOTICES were issued to the Collector, Azamgarh, State of U. P. , and the Treasurer, Azamgarh, and also to the Commissioner, Banaras Division. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Collector, Azamgarh, and it is not denied that the petitioner was not givey any opportunity to show cause against the charges levelled against him or against the proposed punishment. The main stand taken, however, by the opposite party in the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner is not a civil servant of the State. He is employed by the Treasurer who was solely responsible for the maintenance of cash in the treasury. The petitioner, therefore, was not entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the constitution. The main question, therefore, to be considered is what is the relationship of the present petitioner as a tahvildar with the State. If the petitioner is a civil employee of the State he is certainly entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution which has been denied to him in the present case. The petitioner has set out certain facts in the affidavit and the opposite party has also set out certain facts in the counter-affidavit and the question to be considered is whether on admitted facts the petitioner can be regarded as an employee of the State or not. It was strongly urged by the counsel for the State that this is a question of fact and consequently the proper remedy for the petitioner is to enforce his right by way of a suit. If there was any controversy as regards the facts, there would have been some force in the contention raised by the other side but in the present case the contention raised by the petitioner is that on admitted facts it is established that the petitioner is an employee of the State. In order to come to a cor-rect conclusion it is necessary to examine some of the allegations made in the affidavit filed by tho petitioner and the allegations made in the counter-affidavit. In para. 4 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner it is stated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document