249, foot note (e), contains the following statement in regard to the periods of reasonable notice to which persons of various employments have been found entitled:- Newspaper editor, from six months (Fox-Bourne v. 311 (2) will apply to those cases where the government servant, had he been employed by a private employer, would be entitled to maintain an action for wrongful dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. Vernon to twelve months (Grundy v.

If he had a right to the post as in the three cases hereinbefore mentioned, the termination of his service will by itself be a punishment and fie will be entitled to the protection of Art. This is the concept of the freedom of speech and expression as it obtains in the United States of America 125 and the necessary corollary thereof is that no measure can be enacted which would have the effect of imposing a pre- censorship, curtailing the circulation or restricting the choice of employment or unemployment in the editorial force.

In other words and broadly speaking, Art. 1305 or temporary, either on probation or on an officiating basis and whose temporary service has not ripened into a quasi- permanent set-vice as defined in the Temporary Service Rules, the termination of his employment does not deprive him of any right and cannot, therefore, by itself, be a punishment. The profit and loss statements for the year 1954-55 revealed that while 43 of them showed profits 40 had incurred losses. Apart from the recommendations of the Press Commission in that behalf, Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol.

Though no scientific conclusion could be drawn from this statement it showed beyond doubt that the condition of the newspaper industry as a whole could not be considered satisfactory. On behalf of the appellant the contention is that under the Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 he held a 1306 quasi-permanent status in the post of Public Relations Officer to which he was first appointed and he carried that status to the post of Assistant Station Director to which he was later appointed; therefore, he had a right of which he could not be deprived except in accordance with those rules, and the impugned orders were passed in derogation of those rules.

One test for determining, whether the termination of the service of a government servant is by way of punishment is to ascertain whether the servant, but for such termination, had the right to hold the post. " Therefore, the critical question is-did the appellant have a right to the post of Assistant Station Director, which he was holding, when the impugned orders were passed ? If he had such a right, the impugned orders will undoubtedly be bad because they deprive the appellant of that right inasmuch as they terminate his service in the post he was holding and reduce him to a lower post.

It is pertinent to observe that even before the Press Commission the figures had disclosed that out of 127 newspapers 68 had been running into loss and 59 with profits and there was an overall profit of about 1% on a capital investment of seven crores. Section 4(1) authorised the Provincial Government to allot cases for trial to a special judge by notification as well as transfer cases from one special judge to another or to withdraw any case from the jurisdiction of the special judge or make such modifications in the description of a case as may be considered necessary.

The -profit and loss accounts and the balance sheets of the various companies owning or controlling newspaper establishments were also submitted before the Wage Board but they had so far as they went a very sorry tale to tell. To put it in another way, if the government has, by contract, express or implied, or, under the rules, the right to terminate the employment at any time, then such termination in the manner provided by the contract or the rules is, prima facie and per se, not a punishment and does not attract the provisions of Art.

Furthermore, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Union Public Service Commission failed to appreciate the, correct legal position and their opinion, officious or otherwise, was neither decisive nor binding on Government or the appellant. Sun Printing and Publishing Association, (1916) 33 T. The provisions in regard to notice cannot be said to be per se unreasonable. Admittedly,there was no proceeding against the appellant for disciplinary action and he had no opportunity of showing cause against any such action.

If, on the contrary, the appellant had no right to the post he was holding and under the rules governing the conditions of his service his service was liable to be terminated, then the appellant is not entitled to the protection of Art. Under these circumstances, it was all the more incumbent upon the Wage Board even though it discounted these profit and loss statements as not necessarily reflecting the true financial position of these newspaper establishments, to consider the question of the capacity of the industry to pay with greater vigilance.