The court held that the termination of employment without due process can be deemed punitive when linked to integrity charges, thus violating constitutional protections.

1. This is a second appeal by J.S. Verma a senior cloth inspector in the Supply Department against the concurrent decisions of the courts below dismissing his suit for a declaration that the order dated 24th May 1950 terminating his services is void and inoperative and that he should be deemed as continuing in service. The plaintiff's case as detailed in his plaint is as follows:

2. In 1944 he was employed in the District Supply Office, Lucknow and in 1945 promoted to the rank of senior inspector (cloth) in March 1948 his post was abolished and he was retrenched, but later in the year on August 13 due to the re - imposition of control on cloth, he was re - arjpointed as senior inspector (cloth) on the same pay as before. According to the plaintiff he worked to the entire satisfaction of his superiors, but on 23/05/1950 he received a notice signed by Sri B. P. Bhattacharya, District Supply Officer, that his services had been terminated with immediate effect and he was to be paid one month's pay in lieu of notice. His appeal to the District Magistrate and subsequent representations to the Commissioner of the Division and the Minister, Food and Civil Supplies were rejected. Thereupon he filed this suit for a declaration that the order terminating his services was ultra vires, void, and inoperative.
The petitioner contended that this order was really passed on the ground that there were serious complaints against him and his integrity was considered doubtful and this allegation was actually made against him in another order circulated in his office at the time, but he was given no opportunity to meet those complaints and clear himself. He also submitted that the order removing him from service was passed by the District Supply Officer, Lucknow - an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. Thus according to the petitioner the order of removal violated both clauses 1 and 2 of Art.311 of the Constitution.

3. The suit was contested by the State of Uttar Pradesh. It was alleged in the written statement that the petitioner was a temporary servant whose services were terminable on one month's notice or payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice, and were so terminated by the order of 24/05/1950 in accordance with the conditions of his service. The plaintiff's claim that his work was satisfactory was denied; on the contrary, it was alleged, there had been serious and persistent complaints of corruption against him, his integrity was considered very doubtful and as his retention in service was not considered desirable in the public interest his services were terminated with immediate effect on 23/05/1950 and he was relieved of his post in the afternoon of May 24.

4. The plaintiff entered the witness box and produced a number of documents in support of his own case. The only witness for the State was an inspector in the Rationing Department. The officials who were responsible for the decision to dispense with his services did not give evidence. The plaintiff stated on oath that he had been appointed by the District Magistrate, but did not produce the original order of appointment. It was suggested to him in cross - examination that under the terms of his appointment his service could be terminated by one month's notice or payment of one month's pay, but he did not deny the suggestion and gave an evasive reply that he did not recollect any such term. However, he admitted that on the earlier occasion too, in March 1948, his services were dispensed with by giving him one month's pay in lieu of notice. The solitary witness for