Back
1952 Supreme(Nagpur) 131
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Sinha, Mudholkar
TRIBHUWANNATH PANDEY – Appellant
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR – Respondent
Miscellaneous Petition No. 65 of 1952
Decided on : 18-11-1952
T L Sheode, T P Naik, Advocates
A probationer is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed termination of his services under Article 311 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 311 - REMOVAL OF PROBATIONER - REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE - SPECIFIC CHARGES WITH FULL PARTICULARITY - NECESSITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Diwan in the Udaipur State, was integrated into the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services as an Extra Assistant Commissioner on probation. He was later suspended and served with a notice proposing to terminate his services on the grounds of unsatisfactory work during probation and disobedience of government orders. The petitioner submitted a representation, but his services were terminated by an order stating that his work during probation was not satisfactory.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order of removal of the petitioner was in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution and therefore erroneous. It set aside the order and reinstated the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed termination of his services. 2. Whether the charges against the petitioner were specific and with full particularity.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Article 311 of the Constitution requires that a government servant be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed termination of his services. 2. The charges against the petitioner were vague and did not give him a clear idea of what he had to answer. 3. The petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed termination of his services.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of removal of the petitioner and reinstated him.
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. According to the Petitioner he was Diwan in the Udaipur State from September 1947 till the end of that year and drew a salary of Rs. 400-0-0 P.M. By virtue of the agreement of integration dated 15-12-1947 between the Ruler of Udaipur State and the Government of the Central Provinces and Berar (now the State of Madhya Pradesh) the administration of the Udaipur State was completely integrated with that of Madhya Pradesh. As a consequence of integration of the two administrations it was stated that the servants of the Udaipur State would be absorbed as far as possible in their proper positions in Madhya Pradesh. The Petitioner was accordingly taken up as an Extra Assistant Commissioner in the Central Provinces Service Executive Branch. He was placed, on probation and his starting salary was fixed at Rs. 300-0-0 P.M. He makes a grievance of this because, being a confirmed servant of the Udaipur State he was not liable to be placed on probation in the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services and that he was entitled to the same salary as he was getting in the Udaipur State. Another grievance is that he has not been given any increments ever since his joining the service of the State of Madhya Pradesh. A further grievance is that though in the order of appointment he was told that his basic pay will be fixed according to the principle formulated by the Pay Committee that has not been done. It may be mentioned that the Petitioner's period of probation was extended from time to time and eventually his services were terminated by an order passed by the Governor of Madhya Pradesh on 19-1-1952. The Petitioner's grievance is also directed against the termination of his service. The other grievances are sufficiently disclosed in the prayers made by him in his petition. His prayers are as follows:
(1). That non-Petitioner 1 may be directed to treat the Petitioner as its employee under Central General service with corresponding seniority, pay, status etc. according to law.
(2). That the order declaring the Petitioner as a probationer under the non-Petitioner 2 may be declared a nullity and inoperative.
(3). That the orders extending the probationary periods in January 1950 and again in June 1950 may be declared void and quashed arid the Petitioner may be ordered to be 'absorbed' as confirmed employee.
(4). That the orders of suspension, the proposal to terminate service and the termination of service of the non-Petitioner 2 against the Petitioner may be declared illegal and in excess of jurisdiction and may be quashed.
(5). That the Petitioner may be declared to be entitled to the benefits of the Central Pay Committee recommendations as accruing to him from the date of the agreement, i.e., from 15-12-1947.
(6). That compensation in lieu of the Petitioner's privileges of free furnished bungalow, free use of State car, conveyances etc. contributory provident fund, comparative cheap living index in States, education (free) facilities etc. may be ordered to be paid to the Petitioner by the non-Petitioner 2 on behalf of non-Petitioner 1.
(7). That all annual increments as accruing to the Petitioner from 1-1-1948 in the changed administration may be ordered to be given to him.
(8). That the Petitioner may be declared to be continuing in service of the non-Petitioner 1 serving in connection with the affairs of a province, i.e. under non-Petitioner 2.
(9). That the order to prosecute the Petitioner in the aforesaid Criminal Case lately started by authorities claiming, under non-Petitioner 2, may be under' non-Petitioner 1, may be ordered to stop and recoveries made from the Petitioner in due process of law in terms of the revenue recovery case or under civil law, if permissible under the law. Alternatively, the case may be taken on the file of this Honourable Court in original jurisdiction.
(10). That this Honourable Court may be pleased to call for the files and note sheets etc. concerning the Absor
