Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
V. R. Newaskar and H. R. Krishnan, JJ.
GAJRAJ SINGH BHERU SINGH RAJPUT - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.B. - Respondents
Misc. Civil Case 80 Of 1956
Decided On : 10/22/1959
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 311 - RETRENCHMENT - DELAY IN FILING WRIT PETITION - DISMISSAL OF PETITION - GROUNDS.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a Sub-Inspector in the Gwalior Police force, was retrenched from service in 1952 on grounds of consistently bad record and not having the minimum qualification of being a matriculate. He appealed to the Inspector General of Police, who dismissed the appeal. The applicant then memorialized the Government, which dismissed his memorial. He again sent a petition for review, which was also thrown out. He came up to the High Court one year after the dismissal of the review application, two years and nine months after the rejection of the memorial, and two years and nine months after the Inspector General's appellate order.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the delay in filing the writ petition was not satisfactorily explained and that the applicant had not shown due diligence in pursuing his remedies. The Court also held that the retrenchment order was illegal as it was based on the applicant's alleged inefficiency or unsatisfactory work without following the procedure prescribed in Article 311 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in filing the writ petition was satisfactorily explained and whether the applicant had shown due diligence in pursuing his remedies. 2. Whether the retrenchment order was illegal as it was based on the applicant's alleged inefficiency or unsatisfactory work without following the procedure prescribed in Article 311 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the delay in filing the writ petition was not satisfactorily explained and that the applicant had not shown due diligence in pursuing his remedies. The Court noted that the applicant had waited for one year and eight months after the Inspector General's appellate order before filing the writ petition, and that he had not provided a satisfactory explanation for this delay. 2. The Court held that the retrenchment order was illegal as it was based on the applicant's alleged inefficiency or unsatisfactory work without following the procedure prescribed in Article 311 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the retrenchment rules enabled the Government to dispense with the service of a provisional employee on grounds of his not having the prescribed minimum educational qualifications or the Government's decision that there were no adequate reasons for retaining him in the service. However, the Court held that if the authorities chose to terminate the service on the ground of negligence, inefficiency, or other disqualification, then it was really punishing the employee who, in that event, was entitled to the benefit of Article 311.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
( 2 ) THE applicant did not come up soon alter the Inspector General's order, but memorialized the Government though there is no provision tor it in the rules. The Government dismissed his memorial on 25-2-1955, but he again sent a petition (to the Minister concerned) for review. This again was thrown out on 410-1955 and the petitioner came up to this Court on 23-10-1956 one year after the dismissal of the review application one year and eight months after the rejection of the memorial, and two years and nine months after the Inspector General's appellate order, which alone has been provided for in the rules.
( 3 ) THE applicant's contention in regard to delay is that he had been petitioning the Government because, having been appointed by the Ruler, he felt that the Government alone was the proper authority that could punish him. Secondly, even if there was delay, his conduct does not show acquiescence in the order of the so-called retrenchment and, in any event, the opposite party Government is not likely to be adversely affected by the matter being taken up even after some delay. On merits, he has urged that, firstly, this is an order of punishment as it contains findings about his inefficiency and not merely an order of removal from service in accordance with the service contract or any objective test like educational qualifications, length of actual service and the like. Secondly, this being punishment, there was a contravention of Sub-article (1) because having been appointed to this post by the Ruler of the erstwhile Gwalior State, he could not have been removed from service or otherwise punished by an authority subordinate to its equivalent authority, namely, the Madhya Bharat Government itself, as provided in the Convention. Thirdly, it is urged that since an opinion about his inefficiency Or dishonesty has been made the basis of the so called retrenchment, usual notices to show cause and opportunity to answer the charges should have been given, which admittedly, they were not. It is, therefore, prayed that a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate direc- tion should be given to the State Government for the setting aside of the order of retrenchment and his reabsorption into the service.
( 4 ) IN reply, it is argued on behalf of the State that this is not a case of punishment but one of retrenchment in accordance with a scheme framed by Government. Therefore, the procedure laid down in Article 311 has no application. Again, after the formation of Madhya Bharat, the services of the applicant were provisional and precarious without any claim on Government tiff his absorption into the permanent police cadre in the new State. It was especially pointed out that there was delay, even making all allowances, of more th
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
