Skip to content


Nand Kishore Prasad Vs. the State of Bihar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Overruled BySatish Chandra v. The Union of India, AIR1953SC250
SubjectService; Constitution
CourtPatna High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. Judl. Case No. 678 of 1955
Judge
ActsConstitution of India - Article 311
AppellantNand Kishore Prasad
RespondentThe State of Bihar and anr.
Advocates:B.P. Samaiyar, Adv.
Excerpt:
[ramaswami, c.j. and raj kishore prasad, j.] -- constitution of india - article 311 -- it was argued that the petitioner was discharged on the 1st of november, 1955, in terms of the contract of service. even in such a case the petitioner cannot challenge the order of discharge because the contract of service expressly provides that the petitioner can be discharged without assigning any reason and without giving any notice......it was argued that the petitioner was discharged on the 1st of november, 1955, in terms of the contract of service.4. we consider that, the submission of the learned government pleader is well founded. in our opinion article 311 has no application to this case because the discharge of the petitioner from the post of junior clerk on the 1st of november, 1955, is not tantamount to a dismissal or removal from service within the meaning of article 311 of the constitution. this is an ordinary case of a contract being terminated under one of its clauses.5. according to the contract of service dated the 25th of february, 1955 the appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary and was "terminable without notice and without assigning any reason therefor". the authorities of the rajya.....
Judgment:

JUDGMENT

1. In this case the petitioner Nand Kishore Prasad hag applied to the High Court under Article 236 of the Constitution for grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash order No. 1056 of 1955 of Mr. R. N. Roy, General Manager of Bihar Rajya Transport.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a junior clerk on the 27th of March, 1954, and was posted to Gaya, He was discharged from that post later on because he was suspected of being involved In a Police case. The Police, however, submitted a final report and on the 25th of February 1955, the petitioner was reappointed to the post of junior clerk by the order of the General Manager No. 1632, dated the 25th of February, 1955. The order of the General Manager is to the following effect:- "Office of the Rajya Transport Bihar, Memo No. 1632.

RT Estt. Minis. 74-55.

Patna the 24th February, 1955.

To,

Shree Nand Kishore Prasad C/o Shri Krishna Ballabh Sahay, Mohalla Bhawar Pokhar, Bankipur, Patna 4.

He is reappointed until further orders to the post of Junior Clerk on Rs. 50/- in the scale of Rs. 50-2-70 EB 2-90 plus the usual cost of living allowance sanctioned by Government from time to time. The appointment is purely temporary and terminable without notice and without assigning any reason therefor. He will have to abide by the rules and conditions of service which may be framed from time to time.

He should report for duty, in the Central Office at Anisabad immediately. No jointing T. A. will be allowed.

Sd. Illegible.

For General Manager, 25.2.

There was again a complaint against the conduct of the petitioner and on the 1st of November, 1955, the General Manager discharged him from service on the ground that he behaved rudely with the Divisional Engineer and proved himself to be dishonest by making incorrert entries in the Attendance Register. The contention of the petitioner is that this order of discharge was passed without giving ah opportunity to the petitioner to explain the charges. It was argued that the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution had been violated and the order of discharge dated the 1st of November, 1955, is an illegal order made without jurisdiction.

3. The learned Government pleader stated that Article 311 (2) has no application to this case. It was argued that the petitioner was discharged on the 1st of November, 1955, in terms of the contract of service.

4. We consider that, the submission of the learned Government pleader is well founded. In our opinion Article 311 has no application to this case because the discharge of the petitioner from the post of junior clerk on the 1st of November, 1955, is not tantamount to a dismissal or removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. This is an ordinary case of a contract being terminated under one of its clauses.

5. According to the contract of service dated the 25th of February, 1955 the appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary and was "terminable without notice and without assigning any reason therefor". The authorities of the Rajya Transport were, therefore, entitled under the terms of the special contract to terminate, the post of the petitioner without notice and without assigning any reason for their action. There is no question, therefore, of any violation of any constitutional provisions in the present case. The matter has been clearly put by the Supreme Court in Satish Chandra v. The Union of India, AIR 1953 SC 250 (A).

In that case a civil servant, who had been engaged on the basis of a special contract for a certain term, was, on the expiry of the term, re-appointed by a further contract on a temporary basis. In accordance with the Government rules which formed part of the contract, the civil servant was discharged from service after notice. The petitioner filed a petition under Article 32 (1) to the Supreme Court seeking redress for breach of the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 1. and also for breach of the provisions of Article 311.

It was held by the Supreme Court that Article 311 had no application, because there was neither a dismissal nor removal from service, nor a reduction in rank, within the meaning of that Article. We consider that the principle of this case has full application to the present case, and the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution have been violated. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the reason given for discharge was that there was misconduct on the part of the petitioner. But under the terms of the contract the petitioner could have been discharged by the Rajya Transport authorities without assigning any reason and merely because the authorities chose to assign a wrong reason, we do not think that the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution have been violated.

We consider that the authorities should not have found the petitioner guilty of the charge of dishonesty or of rude conduct without giving him an opportunity to show cause. We do not think that portion of the order of discharge dated the 1st of November, 1955, can be supported. But the legal validity of the order of discharge cannot be challenged by the petitioner on this account. It should be taken that in the eye of law the authorities have not given any reason at all for discharging the petitioner from service. Even in such a case the petitioner cannot challenge the order of discharge because the contract of service expressly provides that the petitioner can be discharged without assigning any reason and without giving any notice. We, therefore, hold that the order of discharge dated the 1st of November, 1955 is perfectly valid.

6. As we have already said, the case is governed by the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1953 SC 250 (A) and there is no Illegality or want of jurisdiction in the order dated the 1st of November, 1955, which is challenged in this case.

7. We, therefore, consider that there is no case made out for the grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari. The application is, therefore, dis missed. We do not propose to make any order as to costs in this case.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //