BAMESH CHANDER Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed Munsif under the U. P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules 1951, in a temporary capacity with an express condition that his services were liable to be terminated in accordance with the Rules applicable to temporary Government servants. The petitioner's first posting was at Budaun. He was later transferred from Budaun to Amroha as Munsif. During his posting at Amroha a number of complaints were made against him to the High Court. Under the direction of the High Court the District Judge. Moradabad, submitted his report to the High Court in matters relating to those complaints. A secret enquiry was also held bv the Vigilance Cell of the High Court. 'On 16th August, 1974, this Court sent its recommendations to the Government to terminate the petitioner's services. In pursuance thereof the State Government issued orders on 24-9-1974 terminating the petitioner's services. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this petition under Art 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the Government's order dated 24th September, 1974. During' the pendency of the writ petition the State Government cancelled its earlier order dated 24th September, 1974, and passed another order dated 23rd December, 1974, terminating the petitioner's services by giving him one month's salary instead of notice. The petitioner amended the petition challenging validity of the State Government's order dated 23rd December, 1974.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed Munsif in a temporary capacity, his services were liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reasons by giving him one month's notice or one month's salary in accordance with the rules applicable to temporary Government servants. The termination order dated 23rd December, 1974, has been passed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the petitioner's employment. The order does not purport to punish the petitioner. There is no dispute that formal charges were never framed and no departmental enquiry was held before terminating the petitioner's services. His work and conduct was considered by the High Court to judge his suitability. On 16th August, 1974, this Court resolved that the petitioner's work and conduct was not satisfactory and in the opinion of the High Court he was not suitable to be retained in service. The Court resolved that a recommendation be made to the State Government to terminate the petitioner's services. Thereafter, the Registrar of the Court sent a letter to the Government dated 19th August 1974, forwarding the Court's recommendation. The petitioner's character roll was also forwarded along with the recommendations of the Court. The State Government accepted the recommendations and thereupon it issued the order dated 24th September, 1974. Later on the Government realised that the order terminating the petitioner's services was not expressed in the name of the Governor as required by the Rules and therefore the Government cancelled its order dated 24th September, 1974 and passed a fresh order on 23rd December, 1974, terminating the petitioner's services. These facts show that the petitioner's services were terminated in accordance with the contract of his employment. Neither the High Court nor the State Government intended to punish the petitioner. The impugned order is an order of termination simpliciter, it does not cast any stigma on the petitioner and no evil consequences ensued to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that since enquiry was held by the District Judge, Moradabad, and the Vigilance Cell of the High Court on a number of complaints made against the petitioner and on the basis of those reports the impugned order was passed, the order is not a termination order simpliciter, instead it is an order of punishment without affording any opportunity of defence to the petitioner. It is well established that an order of termination even though issued in unexceptionable form may amount to punishment if it is found that in substance the order was passed by way of punishment. Whenever the services of a temporary Government servant are terminated normally the appointing authority considers the suitability of the Government servant and in doing that it may hold enquiry to ascertain the fitness and aptitude of the Government servant. Holding of enquiry prior to issue of termination order is not always conclusive to determine the true nature of the order of termination. In Champak Lal V/s. Union of India, 1964 AIR(SC) 1854a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered the question at length. The Supreme Court observed that the Government does not terminate the services of a Government servant, be he even a temporary servant, without any rhyme or reason. The Government may find it necessary to terminate the services of a temporary Government servant if it is not satisfied with his conduct or his suitability for the job and in that connection the Government may hold enquiry to ascertain the conduct or suitability of the Government servant but this would not vitiate the order of termination. Wanchoo J. speaking for the Court observed: