Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Mehrotra, J.
DR.KANSHI RAM ANAND - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 599 Of 1955
Decided On : 10/20/1955
{'KEYWORD': 'Termination of Service', 'SUBJECT': 'Civil Services', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Rule 49', 'Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Rule 55', 'U. P. Public Health Service Rules, Rule 11', 'U. P. Public Health Service Rules, Rule 19', 'U. P. Public Health Service Rules, Rule 20', 'U. P. Public Health Service Rules, Rule 21'], 'SUMMARY': 'The court held that the petitioner, a medical officer, was entitled to the protection of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and Article 311 of the Constitution, as he was in permanent employment and his termination of service amounted to removal. The court quashed the order of discharge and directed that the petitioner be reinstated.'}
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a medical officer, was appointed to the U. P. Public Health Service on a two-year probation. After the expiry of the probationary period, he was not confirmed in the service as he did not possess the necessary diploma in public health. He was subsequently discharged from service on the ground of physical unfitness.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not a probationer or a temporary servant, and therefore did not come under the Explanation to Rule 49 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The court also held that the termination of the petitioner's service amounted to removal, as he was in permanent employment, and that he was entitled to the protection of Rule 55 of the Rules and Article 311 of the Constitution.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to the protection of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and Article 311 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the protection of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and Article 311 of the Constitution, as he was in permanent employment and his termination of service amounted to removal. The court relied on the Explanation to Rule 49 of the Rules, which provides that termination of employment in certain circumstances will not be regarded as removal, and held that this Explanation necessarily means that termination of service in other cases will be regarded as removal and the provisions of Rule 55 in those cases will be attracted.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the order of discharge, and directed that the petitioner be reinstated.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that an order passed by the u. P. Government dated 5-8-1954, terminating the services of the applicant be quashed.
( 2 ) THE facts are fully set out in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. The applicant is a refugee from Punjab. He passed his M. B. B. S. degree from using Edward Medical College, lahore in 1939. He migrated from Pakistan to India in 1947 and started residing in Hardwar in district Saharanpur. He was appointed to the U. P. Public Health Service from 20-6-1949 for a period of six months and was posted at Dehra Dun as Medical Officer, Anti-Epidemic operations. On 10-8-1949, he received a communication from the Assistant Director of Medical and Health services, U. P. to the effect that the orders for his permanent appointment in the U. P. Public health Service have since been received. He was, therefore, advised to stick to his appointment. When serving at Dehra Dun, he was asked to appear before the Medical Board in 1949 and again before the U. P. Medical Board and was declared fit by the said Board in April 1950. After this he was appointed as Medical Officer Anti-Epidemie Operations in U. P. Medical service on two years probation from 20-6-1949. His probationary appointment was published in the gazette dated July, 1950. On 16-10-1950, the petitioner received a communication from the director of Medical and Health Services. U. P. to the following effect:
"the post on which you have been appointed is permanent and pensionable and you will be confirmed on it in due course provided your work is satisfactory. "
In the ordinary course, the probationary period expired on 19-6-1951. The applicant was transferred from Dehra Dun to Saharanpur on 2-9-1952 and was posted at Saharanpur as Malaria survey Officer. On 8-1-1954, the Additional Director of Medical and Health Services informed the petitioner that in accordance with the order of Government he was directed to appear before the next Medical Board at Meerut. The applicant appeared before the Medical Board at Meerut on 9-2-1954 and was declared fit by the Board. The applicant was directed by a letter dated 24-3-1954, sent by the Civil Surgeon, Meerut under instructions from the Director of Medical and Health Services, U. P. , to appear before the divisional Medical Board consisting of the Civil Surgeon, an Assistant Surgeon and a Military doctor. The Military doctor held in favour of the petitioner while the remaining two doctors gave their opinion adverse to the petitioner. The petitioner was, therefore, asked to appear before the state Medical Board at Lucknow on 3-7-1954.
( 3 ) GOVERNMENT Order dated 5-8-1954 was sent to the applicant from which it appeared that he had been declared unfit for the retention in service by the State Medical Board and he was invalidated and discharged. After this order of discharge, the applicant made a representation to the Director of Medical and Health Services, U. P. by his letter dated 23-8-1954 in which he protested against the order of his discharge. Thereafter he made several representations to the head of his department and on 31-8-1954 he received a communication from the Director of medical and Health services intimating him that his representation had been rejected. Thereafter he made three representations to the Governor dated 27-8-1954, 2-9-1954 and 3-12-1954 praying for his reinstatement and for the revision of the order passed against him. He also made a representation to the effect that he was entitled to his increments which had been withheld. He received a communication from the Secretary to Govt. , U. P. , D/- 17-6-1955 in which it was stated that his representations had been rejected and as he had been invalidated from service on the basis of an authoritative medical opinion and that as his services had not been terminated as a sequel to any disciplinary proceedings, the provisions of Section 55 of the civil Services (Cl
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
