VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 5
197
which he may have even legitimately acquired have been declared
to be attachable instead. The obvious intention of this section of the
Ordinance was to prevent the mischief from allowing the alleged
offender to run away with or to benefit by the money or property
procured by him by means of an offence and to prevent the courts
from undoing the harm if he is eventually found guilty and thus
depriving him of his illegitimate gains. This intention can best be
achieved by construing sec. 3 of the Ordinance in the above manner.
(5)
Termination — of contractual service
Termination of contractual service by notice does
not attract provisions of Art. 311(2) of Constitution
as there is neither a dismissal nor a removal from
service, nor is it a reduction in rank.
Satish Chandra Anand vs. Union of India,
AIR 1953 SC 250
The petitioner was employed by Government of India on a
five year contract in the Director General of Resettlement and
Employment of Ministry of Labour, in October, 1945. Shortly before
its expiration, an offer was made to continue him in service on the
termination of the contract temporarily, by letter dated 30-6-50. A
notice was given on 25-11-50 informing him that his services would
terminate on the expiry of one month from 1-12-50. It was contended
by the petitioner that he has either been dismissed or removed from
service without the safeguards which Art. 311 of Constitution
conferred.
The Supreme Court held that Art. 311 has no application
because it is neither a dismissal nor a removal from service, nor is it a
reduction in rank. It is an ordinary case of a contract being terminated
by notice under one of the clauses. The Supreme Court referred to
the provisions in the Civil Services (CCA) Rules and the explanation
under rule 49 that the discharge of a person engaged under contract
in accordance with the terms of his contract, does not amount to
removal