Kapur, J.:— These are two rules obtained by two brothers, Amar Nath Dhawan and Gopal Krishan Dhawan, against the State of Punjab to show cause why the order of dismissal of the two petitioners be not set aside.
2. Amar Nath Dhawan was employed as a Sub Inspector of Civil Supplies under the Government of Punjab and his services were terminated by Government on the 1st June, 1951. It appears that he was employed on the 9th December, 1948, by letter No. AC/1-7/13/9 by Mr. S.S Grewal, District Organizer Civil Supplies and Rationing, of Amritsar. The letter of appointment is as follows:—
“You have been appointed as Assistant Enquiry Officer in the grade of 65-4-105 with usual allowances sanctioned by Government from time to time.
The post for which you have been selected is temporary and your services are liable to be terminated any time, without previous notice. In case you wish to resign the post you will have to give one month's notice or refund a month's pay and allowances in lieu of the notice.”
3. On the 21st July, 1949, Amar Nath Dhawan signed a letter in which he stated—
“I understand that my employment under the East Punjab Government……..is temporary and that my services may be dispensed with at any time without notice and without any reasons being assigned . .”.
4. On the 26th May, 1951, the Director Food and Civil Supplies made an order stating that the services of Amar Nath Dhawan should be terminated immediately without assigning any reason in terms of his temporary employment with the Civil Supplies Department. According to the affidavit of Amar Nath Dhawan his services were terminated as from the let June, 1951. A confidential letter a copy of which is Appendix ‘C’ and has been placed on the file by the petitioner was issued by Mr. Gyan Singh Kahlon, I.C.S, Director General of Civil Supplies to various Departments in which it was stated that Amar Nath Dhawan had been discharged from service for “doubtful honesty”. Appendix ‘D’ is the discharge certificate which was issued to Amar Nath Dhawan. In this the reasons for discharge are shown as “Services no longer required in the Civil Supplies Department” A supplementary affidavit has been put in by the petitioner, dated the 12th April, 1952, in which he has stated that he made a representation to Government against the termination of his services, but the Government saw no reason to interfere with the order passed by the District Organizer. He then made a representation to His Excellency the Governor on the 12th October, 1951, and His Excellency also refused to interfere. It is after this that he has made an application to this Court asking for an appropriate writ to issue. Counsel relies on Article 311 of the Constitution of India and submits that the case falls within the second sub-clause of this Article where it is provided—
“No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him.”
5. He relies on a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Jayanti Prasad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh . A.I.R 1951 All. 793., where the learned Judges said—
“It is not so much a question of the post being held temporarily or it being of a permanent nature, the real question is whether a person's services are being dispensed with before his normal period of service has terminated by reason of misconduct on his part or otherwise”.
6. With very great respect I am unable to agree with the view of the learned Judges because in the first place there is no normal period of employment for persons who have been employed on a temporary basis, and then the mere fact that the Government has some reason for terminating the services of such persons is not in my opinion relevant to the issue. As a matter of fact in the present case even that question does not are, because in the discharge certificate all that is stated is that the Government does not require the petitioner's services. I am indeed surprised as to bow the petitioner has been able to get hold of a confidential document and has been able to place it on the file. His getting hold of this document shows either laxity on the part of the Department or extra cleverness on the part of the petitioner.
7. This matter of the dismissal of persons employed on a temporary basis has been the subject-matter of adjudication in Des Raj v. The Dominion of India . 54 P.L.R 85., and this very Bench decided that case relying on two other judgments, N.S Kohli v. The State of Punjab . 52 P.L.R 9 Notes., and the other was the very Allahabad case which I have referred to above. In my opinion where a person is employed on a temporary basis it is open to the State to terminate his services either at the expiry of the period mentioned in the contract or where no period is mentioned then by giving him one month's notice or of such period as is required by the contract or without any notice where the contract expressly mentions that no notice is necessary. The reason which motivates an action being taken is not in my opinion relevant. I am therefore of the opinion that Amar Nath Dhawan's petition is without substance and must be dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 100.
8. Coming to the case of Gopal Krishan Dhawan, he was employed on a similarly temporary basis like his brother, Amar Nath Dhawan, by a letter dated the 19th August, 1918, and his affidavit shows that his services were terminated on the 29th August, 1951. His discharge certificate is exactly in similar terms as that of his brother as also the confidential letter issued by the Department. For reasons which I have given in the case of Amar Nath Dhawan, I am of the opinion that this petition should also be dismissed and the rule discharged with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 100. In the result both the rules are discharged with costs.
9. Falshaw, J.:— I agree.
10. Rules discharged.