( 1. ) NO wonder the widening horizon of the emergent Service jurisprudence has not enlightened the vision of the Court below which resulted in a very salutary and wholesome decision being nullified.

( 2. ) RESPONDENTs counsel has laboured hard, but I am not prepared to go with him to put on blinkers and plug my ears and refuse to look at or heed the message written in golden letters in the several monumental decisions rendered by the Apex Court (see -Government Branch Press vs. D. B. Belliappa, AIR 1979 SC 429; W. B. S. E Board vs. Desk Bandhu Ghosh, AIR 1985 SC 722; C. I. W. T. vs. Brojo Nath AIR 1986 SC 1571. Indeed, I acknowledge my debt to the supreme light which kindled my vision in rendering decisions in this Court in the case of Smt. Sushila Shirdhonkar (Second appeal No. 213 of 1974 decided on 28-10-1986) and Kumari Raja Bai Gourkar (Second appeal No. 180 of 1986 decided on 5-1-1987 ).

( 3. ) THE facts are few, but bleneding. On 1-6-1953 vide Ex. D/2, the plaintiff first got inducted into the service of the State as a Time Keeper on a petty salary of Rs. 64/-per month in the Public Works Department at Sheopur in District Morena. It is not disputed that he lost his job subsequently when, on 8-8-1958, vide Ex. D/1, he again got into service. This time, care was taken to put a lapel on his torn jacket branding him "work-charged" employee and his salary was fixed at Rs. 69/- per month. What has further to be extracted from the letter of appointment is that his services were "liable to termination without any notice in case of inefficiant work or any misconduct". Even at this stage, I might note that basis for the order was para 107 of P. W. D. Manual, Vol I, and I quote:

"107. Appointment orders - Before a person is appointed to the work establishment the amount of his pay should be fixed and communicated to him. He should be told that this reengagement will be terminated summarily, if there is any serious misconduct on his part, or otherwise, at one months notice or on the completion of the work for which he is engaged, whichever is earlier. If joining expenses are to be allowed to him under paragraph 111 he should be informed accordingly. "

( 4. ) AFTER eight years; one fine morning, on 8-8-1968, he was served with "notice for termination from service" which is proved as Ex. P/1. It merely states "as your services are no longer required your services shall stand terminated after expiry of a months time from the date of issue of this order". It is the validity of this notice which is challenged and the suit laying the challenge was decreed by the trial Court A very reasonable and reasoned, exhaustively written, judgment was rendered dealing threadbare law and facts with an enlightened vision. With reference to the pleadings as also evidence, the finding rendered by the trial Court, which remained undisturbed at the appellate stage is pressed for my consideration by appellants counsel, Shri Swami sharan, to submit that the impugned judgment of reversal is not tenable in law. At paras 20 and 21 of its judgment, the finding appears on a consideration of the evidence of d. W. 1 who was the Executive Engineer, P. W. D. during whose tenure services of the plaintiff were terminated. In his evidence, he admitted that the plaintiff was engaged in "union activities" and the trial Court held in categorical terms that plaintiff had suffered the penalty for his said activities and indeed also for other acts of "misconduct" to which d. W. 1 deposed in his evidence. He stated that the plaintiff had prepared false muster rolls and had used criminal force against one of his colleagues. Trial Court rightly took the view of the settled law that Article 311 would be attracted when services of any government servant were terminated for any misconduct despite the camouflaged order terminating simpliciter the services. ( 5. ) UNFORTUNATELY, the Court of appeal below attached more importance to the afore-quoted provision of the P. W. D. M