PRINCIPAL MEDICAL COLLEGE PONDICHERRY Vs. M J VINCENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the Union Government arises from an order of Ramakrishnan J. , quashing the termination of the respondent from service by an order dated 23-91960, of the Principal of the Pondicherry Medical College. It was found that the respondent had misappropriated as on 9-5-1960, a sum of Rs. 841-46 when he was serving as a cashier. He was placed under suspension immediately pending enquiry. By an order dated 22-9-1960, of the Principal, the respondent was directed to make good the money and, pursuant to that direction, the sum was adjusted against his security deposit in the form of savings bank account pledged with the Principal. The next day the termination order was made. It said that the services of the respondent were terminated with effect from the date of service of the order and that he would be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for one month, which was the period of notice due to him. There was an appeal and a revision by the respondent which were all unsuccessful. The order rejecting the revision was dated 27-7-1962. Ramakrishnan J. quashed the order on the view that the Principal of the College had terminated the respondent's services without giving him a reasonable opportunity to show cause against it and that the order was, therefore, vitiated as being in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Judge also rejected the contention for the Union that article 226 was not retrospective. It was also considered by him that the order of termination was by way of punishment and that Article 311 would be applicable to the case.

(2.) WE agree with Ramakrishnan J. , that the order of termination was, in the peculiar circumstances, one of punishment. Though the order did not ex fade read in that way, having regard to the fact that on the day preceding the termination the respondent has been found guilty of the charge of misappropriation and the order of termination followed within a few hours, there can be no doubt that the termination was as a result of that finding. Whether a given order is a case of punishment or not would depend no doubt on the facts. In this case, we find that no emoluments were paid to the respondent for the period covered by the suspension and before termination. He was only allowed the usual subsistence allowance under the rules. That apart, the two orders of the Principal read together without doubt left a stigma on the respondent. It follows, therefore, that the order of termination amounted to punishment.

(3.) IT Is equally clear that, inasmuch as the respondent had not been given an opportunity to show cause against termination, the order against the respondent violated the principles of natural justice. It goes without saying that for that reason the order would be in violation of Article 311 as well.