Case: Madan Gopal Vs. State Of Punjab

The appellant Madan Gopal was appointed an inspector of consolidation by order dated 5 October, 1953 of the Settlement Commissioner of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union. The appointment was "on temporary basis and terminable with one months notice." On 5 February, 1955, the appellant was served with a "chargesheet" by the settlement officer, Bhatinda, that he (the appellant) had received Rs. 150 as illegal gratification from one Darbara Singh and had demanded Rs. 30 as illegal gratification from one Ude Singh. The appellant was called upon to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him if the allegations in the chargesheet were proved. The appellant submitted his explanation to the chargesheet. On 22 February, 1955, the Settlement Officer submitted his report to the Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda, that the charge relating to receipt of illegal gratification from Darbara Singh was proved. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 17 March, 1955 ordered that the services of Madan Gopal, inspector, be terminated forthwith and that in lieu of notice he will get one months pay as required by theappellant requested the Deputy Commissioner to review the order, and also submitted a memorial to the Minister for Revenue Affairs. Having failed to obtain relief, the appellant applied to the High Court of Pepsu for a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution quashing the order dated 17 March, 1955 on the ground inter alia that the order of dismissal from service was in contravention of Art. 311 of the Constitution as no reasonable opportunity to show cause against the order of dismissal was at all given. He also challenged the authority of the Settlement Officer to hold the enquiry and submitted that the procedure followed by that officer in making the enquiry was irregular. The petition was transferred to the High Court of Punjab on the reorganization of the State of Punjab.Bishan Narain, J., who heard the application, issued the writ prayed for, because, in the view, the order of termination of employment was in the nature of an order of punishment and as the provisions of Art. 311(2) had not been complied with by the enquiry officer, the Deputy Commissioner or the Settlement Commissioner, the order was invalid. In appeal under the letters Patent, the order was reversed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court held that the appellant was a temporary servant and had no right to hold the post he was occupying and by the impugned order the appellant was not dismissed or removed from service, but his employment was terminated in exercise of authority reserved under the terms of employment, and no penalty was imposed upon the appellant.

Court's reasoning:
In this case the enquiry made by the Settlement Officer was made with the object of ascertaining whether disciplinary action should be taken against the appellant for his alleged misdemenour. It was clearly an enquiry for the purpose of taking punitive action including dismissal or removal from service if the appellant was found to have committed the misdemeanour charged against him. Such an enquiry and order consequent upon the report made in the enquiry will not fall within the principle of Ram Narayan Das case [1961 - I L.L.J. 552] (vide supra).