Harpal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
EmailTermination of service – Temporary employee – Order of termination grounded upon adverse entries – Even if the adverse order is innocous and does not show any element of stigma, the Court has jurisdiction to peer below to find out the foundations of the order – A temporary servant is entitled to protection of Article 311(2) – He is entitled to defend himself in a proceeding – As there was no proceeding, the order of termination quashed.
2. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1975) 1 SCR 814.
3. Purshottam Lal Dhingras case (1985 SCR 828).
1. The appellant joined service as a Sales Tax Officer under the State of Uttar Pradesh. There were four adverse entries against him, for the years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80. After those entries were made, by Order dated 24.7.1979 the appellant’s services were terminated. Against the adverse entries in his C.R. the appellant filed a claim before the Uttar Pradesh Services Tribunal while against the order of termination of service the appellant approached the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court by filing a writ petition. The claim before the Services Tribunal is still pending while the writ petition before the High Court has now been dismissed. The High Court held that the appellant had not been confirmed and was still a temporary employee and the impugned order was one of termination simpliciter without any stigma.
2. When the matter came before this Court by way of special leave against the decision of the High Court, this Court made two successive orders directing the services Tribunal to dispose of the claim by fixing dates for compliance. The Tribunal has failed to comply with the orders. Now that the appeal itself is being disposed of, it is not necessary to go into the justification for non-disposal of the complaint pending before the Tribunal.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the State it has been disclosed that the order of termination though apparently innocuous was grounded upon the adverse entries. Paragraph 6(vii) of the counter affidavit filed in this Court stated:
“It is submitted that the petitioner’s services were terminated vide G.O. dated 24.7.1979. His service record till that time would indicate that his work and conduct had not been satisfactory.
In paragraph 6(x), the extracts of the entries have been given and in paragraph 6(xii) it has been clearly stated that his conduct was the foundation of the order of termination.
4. A seven Judge Bench of this Court in SHAMSHER SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB (1975) 1 SCR 814 laid down:
“No abstract proposition can be laid down that where the services of a probationer are terminated without saying anything more in the order of termination than that the services are terminated, it can never amount to a punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case. If a probationer is discharged on the ground of misconduct or inefficiency or for similar reason without a proper enquiry and without his getting reasonable opportunity of showing cause against his discharge it may in a given case amount to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution.”
Law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that even if the adverse order is innocuous and does not show any element of stigma, the Court has jurisdiction to peer below to find out what exactly is the foundation of the order. (See for instance JAGDISH MITTER VS. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1964 S.C. 449). The apparent innocuous order would be linked with the stigma if the link is available as stated above. Here the link is not far to seek and the respondent has disclosed what exactly were the grounds for making the order.
5. A temporary servant is entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Eversince the proposition was laid down by this Court in PURSHOTTAM LAL DHINGRA’S case (1958 SCR 828), there has never been doubt expressed about the position. On the other hand, the proposition has often been reaffirmed.
6. The law is equally settled that if an innocuous order is grounded upon features which stigma against the affected officer, he was entitled to defend himself in a proceeding as provided under the rules applicable to him.
7. It is conceded in this case that there was no proceeding taken. In these circumstances, the order of termination is bound to be quashed. We allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the High Court and quash the termination. The appellant shall be deemed to be in service and would be entitled to all the benefits admissible under the Rules. The appeal is allowed with costs. Hearing fee of Rs.3,000/- is allowed.
Appeal allowed.
