KRISHAN CHAND GOYAL Vs. PUNJAB STATE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was admitted to Division Bench as the correctness of a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Y. K. Bhatia V/s. State of Haryana, 1977 1 SLR 85, was sought to be doubted on the basis of a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Manager, Government Branch Press V/s. D. B. Belliapa, 1979 1 SLR 351, and that is how this case is before us.

(2.) We have gone through both the aforesaid decisions and find that there is no conflict between the two and no different law has been laid down in D. B. Belliapa's case , than was laid down by the Supreme Court in its various decisions which were followed by the Full Bench in Y. K. Bhatia's case . In para 4 of the Full Bench judgment, three Supreme Court decisions have been noticed wherein it was laid down that if the service of an employee is terminated either on the basis of the terms and conditions of service or under the relevant rules, the order cannot be held to be arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution, merely because some juniors, are retained in service. Of the three Supreme Court decisions, the first Union of India V/s. Pandurang Kashinath, 1962 AIR(SC) 630 was by a Constitution Bench of five Judges.

(3.) In GOVT BRANCH PRESS, MANAGER V/S D B BELLIAPPA, 1979 LabIC 146 (SC) , the employee was required to show cause why disciplinary action be not taken against him as per rules and it was further stated therein that on failure to comply with the notice he would be suspended and further disciplinary action would be taken. Few days thereafter, an order of simple termination of service was served on the employee, which was challenged in a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the Mysore High Court, and the employee in his additional affidavit dated 25th Jan. 1968, took up the plea that there was hostile discrimination against him because he was arbitrarily singled out for discriminatory treatment vis-a-vis the three named juniors who in all respects were similarly situated, because of the notice to show cause served on him and was not a simple termination of service either under the conditions of appointments or the relevant rules. These averments were not rebutted or countered by the opposite side on affidavit nor was any material produced on the record to show that there was any special reason for terminating the respondent's service and continuing the service of his juniors. On these peculiar facts, a Bench of three Judges drew a distinction as compared to earlier decided cases and did not lay down any rule as a matter of law that the service of a temporary servant cannot be dispensed with in accordance with the terms and conditions of employment or the service rules. Even in this judgment, the earlier view was reiterated that the service of a temporary Government servant can be terminated on the around of his un- suitability, unsatisfactory conduct or the like, which would put him in a class apart from his iuniors in the same service, which would be clear from the following passage of the judgment: