STATE OF U P Vs. VIJAY SHANKAR TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The service of the respondent was terminated by an order dated 16-08-1988. It was indicated that his services were no longer required and, therefore, notice was given with the requisite one month pay and allowance. Such termination was questioned before the State Public Service Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh (in short the Tribunal). The Claim Petition No. 337/V/89 was dismissed holding that the order of termination was a termination simplic-iter and no stigma was attached. It was found that there were certain allegations and the respondent-employee had more or less accepted the allegations. The order of termination was, therefore, neither attached with any stigma nor was visited by any punitive character. Accordingly, it was held that Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution) was not attracted. The respondent-employee filed a writ petition only on the ground that Article 311(2) of the Constitution was required to be followed in the case of temporary Government servants. High Court was of the view that Article 311(2) is required to be followed even in case of temporary Government employees. Accordingly, the order of termination was set aside and the writ petition was allowed.

(3.) In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-State and its functionaries submitted that the basic issue before the High Court was whether the order of termination was a termination simpliciter or there was any stigma attached. There is no quarrel to the proposition that Article 311(2) is attracted to temporary Government servants. But whether on the facts of the case, the order of termination was legal, was not tested by the High Court. It was pointed out that there is nothing in the order of termination which even remotely shows any stigma and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in ignoring this aspect and allowing the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that before the order of termination, an enquiry was purportedly conducted and some materials were taken on record. Without granting any opportunity to the respondent herein and without holding an enquiry, the order of termination was passed. According to him, the enquiry report was both the motive and the foundation for the order of termination.