S VIDYASHANKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged the decision of the learned Single Judge dismissing his Writ Petition and upholding the order passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India, the second respondent herein, terminating the service of the appellant.

(2.) THE appellant was temporarily appointed as an Officer in the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) on 10.4.1989. THE appointment was subject to SEBI Service Regulations, 1988. Regulations 10(1) and 10(4) inter alia read as follows:

(3.) THE question as to when the termination of the temporary appointee or probationer's service amounts to punishment has been first considered by the Supreme Court in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v.Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36. In that case, the employee had been reverted back from an officiating post. THE records showed that adverse remarks had been made against the employee in his confidential reports while he was officiating. THEse remarks were placed before the General Manager who said that he was "disappointed" to read them and that he should be reverted as a subordinate "till he makes good the shortcomings noticed....". THE order of reversion was passed by the General Manager soon after this. When the issue ultimately came before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, the Court upheld the order of reversion, saying: (AIR P..50, para 29)"He had no right to continue in that post and under the general law the implied term of such appointment was that it was terminable at any time on reasonable notice by the Government and, therefore, his reduction did not operate as a forfeiture of any right and could not be described as reduction in rank by way of punishment. Nor did this reduction under Note 1 to Rule 1702 amount to his dismissal or removal. Further it is quite clear from the orders passed by the General Manager that it did not entail the forfeiture of his chances of future promotion or affect his seniority in his substantive post. In these circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner was not reduced in rank by way of punishment and therefore, the provisions of Article 311(2) do not come into play at all".