Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21706 of 1995 Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Yadav Respondent :- Prabandh Nideshak And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- D.S.P. Singh,V. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Ravi Kant,S.C.,Shrikant Shukla
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri V. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State and Sri Shrikant Shukla, learned counsel for respondent.
2. Admittedly, petitioner was appointed on temporary basis in first category of Salesmen and he joined on 01.10.1977 and by order of termination simplicitor, he has been terminated.
3. It is contended that prior to impugned order of termination, order of suspension was passed, thereafter, petitioner has been terminated, thus impugned order amounts to order of punishment vitiated in law, since, no enquiry has been conducted.
4. However, I find no substance. Mere fact that petitioner was suspended will not make impugned order punitive in nature. The petitioner, being a temporary employee, could have been terminated by termination simplicitor and the provisions relating to departmental enquiry are not attracted as held by Apex Court in State of U. P. Vs. Kamla Devi, 1996 (4) SCC 548.
5. Earlier also, in State of Punjab Vs. Sukh Raj Bahadur, AIR 1968 SC 1089, a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court while deciding the question, a simple order of reversion, whether punitive or not, after referring various earlier authorities on the subject culled out the following propositions :
“(1) The services of a temporary servant or a probationer can be terminated under the rules of his employment and such termination without anything more would not attract the operation of Article 311 of the Constitution.
(2) The circumstances preceding or attendant on the order of -2-
termination of service have to be examined in each case, the motive behind it being immaterial.
(3) If the order visits the public servant with any evil consequences or casts an aspersion against his character or integrity, it must be considered to be one by way of punishment, no matter whether he was a mere probationer or a temporary servant.
(4) An order of termination of service in unexceptionable form preceded by an enquiry launched by the superior authorities only to ascertain whether the public servant should be retained in service, does not attract the operation of Article 311 of the Constitution.
(5) If there be a full-scale departmental enquiry envisaged by Article 311 i. e. an Enquiry Officer is appointed, a chargesheet submitted, explanation called for and considered, any order of termination of service made thereafter will attract the operation of the said article.”
6. Admittedly, the case of petitioner falls under the category (1) of the principles laid down by Apex Court in Sukh Raj Bahadur (supra) and therefore, there was no requirement at all of any enquiry against the petitioner before terminating his services by an order of termination simplicitor. These principles were followed by Apex Court in subsequent decisions in Union of India Vs. R.S. Dhaba 1969 (3) SCC 603, State of Bihar Vs. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra 1970 (2) SCC 871, R. S. Sial Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1974 SC 1317 and State of U.P. Vs. Sughar Singh AIR 1974 SC 423 and also by this Court in Paras Nath Pandey Vs. Director, North Central Zone, Cultural Centre 2008 (10) ADJ 283.
7. In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere. Writ petition lacks merit.
8. Dismissed accordingly. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order date: 26.04.2019 Manish Himwan