LAWS(GJH)-2000-2-87

PRUTHVISINH S RAIJADA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On February 25, 2000
PRUTHVISINH S.RAIJADA Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of termination recorded, on 30.1.1987, by the respondent authority, whereby, the services of the petitioner as Police Constable, came to be terminated, by paying salary of one month, as he was on temporary service, inter alia, contending that it is stigmatic and, therefore, it is violative of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

(2.) After having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and considering the text and tenor of the impugned order, it becomes evident that it is an order of termination of service simpliciter. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner joined the service with the respondent, as Police Constable, on 14.3.84, and he was a temporary Police Constable. The main thrust of the petition against the impugned order is that, in reality, the same is stigmatic in the light of the previous notice and the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent authority. Prima facie, this submission appears to be very alluring and attractive, but when one gets into reality, it cannot be said to be sound and sustainable. Needless to reiterate that the impugned order is, 'ipse-dixit' simpliciter which has not cast any stigma. Nexus is sought to be established with alleged stigma with the help of the notice and the subsequent affidavit in reply. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the decision reported in Anopsin v. H.V.K.Gupta, 1986(2) GLR 753. It is true that notice dated 11.12.86, came to be served on the petitioner indicating and highlighting many instances and incidents during which period, the petitioner by one or other reason remained absent or was absconding. Therefore, the notice was given for termination of service on the ground of misconduct. The reply to the said notice dated 11.12.86 was given by the petitioner, in which, he has pleaded guilty and admitted the lapses ad irregularities and absence of various occasions. He has stated that the lapses occurred on account of family dispute and loss of physical and mental balance and equilibrium. Be that as it may. The respondent authority, while passing the impugned order of termination has not at all referred to any misconduct or irregularity. The impugned order simply states that the services of the petitioner are not required. As he was a temporary servant, his service could be terminated by giving him one months notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof. Therefore, by virtue of the impugned order dated 30.1.87, giving one months's salary, the services of the petitioner were terminated simpliciter with effect, from 31.1.87. Undoubtedly, the text and tenor of the termination order does not even remotely cast any aspersion or stigma on the service career or record of the petitioner. It is true that even in case of a temporary servant or probationer, for that purpose, the services of an employee cannot be terminated without observing due procedure in the light of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India in case of stigmatic order.

(3.) The question which has surfaced for determination and adjudication in this petition is very simple. Could the impugned notice terminating the service be classified or characterised as termination simpliciter or a stigmatized one. Prima facie, on the plain perusal of notice, it could not be said even for a moment that is a stigmatized one, about which there is no dispute. The notice prior to the termination order and the affidavit in reply succeeded after the petition came to be filed could not be taken into consideration for holding that the impugned order would assume the colour of stigma or aspersion. The decision relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner in the connection (supra) is not helpful to the petitioner in view of the following two decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court.