STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus VEERAPPRA SABOJI AND ANR.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus VEERAPPRA SABOJI AND ANR.

Respondent No. 1 was not confirmed in service nor deemed to be confirmed under applicable rules; the termination was not punitive but a notice simpliciter, thus not violating Article 311(2). The High Court erred in setting aside the termination without a basis for deemed confirmation or proof of punitive intent.

Parties
Appellant: State of Maharashtra; Respondent No. 1: Veerappa R. Saboji; Respondent No. 2: Law Secretary to Government of Maharashtra; Respondent No. 3: K. N. Wahi; Respondent No. 4: P. G. Karnik
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 September 1979
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and order set aside; writ petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Termination of Service, Probation and Confirmation, Judicial Service Recruitment, Article 311(2) of the Constitution, Right to Information in Service Termination
Constitutional Law Service Law Administrative Law Termination of Service Probation and Confirmation Judicial Service Recruitment Article 311(2) of the Constitution Right to Information in Service Termination

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Maharashtra

Appellant

Veerappa R. Saboji

Respondent No. 1

Law Secretary to Government of Maharashtra

Respondent No. 2

K. N. Wahi

Respondent No. 3

P. G. Karnik

Respondent No. 4

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order terminating respondent's service was punitive and in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether deemed confirmation can be inferred under Rule 4(2)(iv) of the Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1956
  3. 3 Whether the Court can call for and scrutinise official records forming the basis of the termination order

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent No. 1 was not confirmed in service nor deemed to be confirmed under applicable rules; the termination was not punitive but a notice simpliciter, thus not violating Article 311(2). The High Court erred in setting aside the termination without a basis for deemed confirmation or proof of punitive intent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and order set aside; writ petition dismissed.

Orders

  • Respondent No. 1 to be paid costs by appellant as previously ordered by Supreme Court.