STATE OF U.P. versus RAM CHANDRA TRIVEDI

A

B

C

D

E

F

462

STATE OF U.P.

v.

RAM CHANDRA TRIVEDI

September I, 1976

[ H. R. KHANNA, R. S. SARKARIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.].

Practice-Duty of High Court when there is confiic~ between decision.o of the in second appeal

Supreme Court-Upsettinf! concurrent findin!JS of Propriety.

fact

Constitution of India, 1950 Art. 311-Termlnation of services of temporary

servam-Protection of article when applicable.

The respondent was appointed as a temporary clerk

in an engineering ::fivision of the Government. The attempt of another clerk to impersonate an:! appear for him in a departmental examination was detected. The Executive Engineer obtained explanations from both the clerks and reported the ·matter to the Superintending Engineer, who brought the matter to the notice of the Chief Engineer. The Chief Engineer wrote to the Superintending Engineer to award suitable punishment. The Superintending Engineer passed the order that · the respondent a "temporary clerk is hereby served with one month's notice to the effect that his services shall not be required after one month from the date of receipt of this notice." The respondent filed a suit challenging the termination was one passed by way order on the Constitution; of punishment and and complied with the order was void. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the suit. But the High Court went through the official correspondence preceding the passing of the impugned order, and o~rving that a close scrut'ny of the feels on record showed that the order was passed by way of r punishment on the basis of the enquiry proceeding and as a result of the recommendation by the Executive Engineer followed by the direction issued by Chief Engineer, allowed the second appeal.

therefore attracted Art. 311 of

the provisions of

tha Article had

the ground

since

been

that

not

the

Allowing the appeal to this Court,

HELD : (!) It is no longer open to any ohe to urge that the cons'tutional position in regard to cases of the present nature is not clear. An examination of the decisions of this Court shows that there is no real conflict in their ratio decidendi. Even if there is a conflict, the proper course for a High Court i~ to find out and follow the opinion expressed by larger benches of this Court in pre. ference to those expressed by smaller benches of this Court. This practice is followed by thi; Court itself and has hardened into a rule of law.

[475B-C]

G

ed.

Union of India & A nr. v. K. S. Subramanian, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 87, follow-

.

.

State of U.P. & Ors v. Sughw Singh [1974] 2 S.C.R. 335: (1974) 1 S.C.C. 218, The State of Punjab< v. P.S. Cheema A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1096, Satish Chandra Anand v. The Union of India [1953] S.C.R. 655, Shyam I.al v. State of U.P. [1955] 1 S.C.R. 26, Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union <Yf India [1958] S.C.R. 828, Gopi Kishore Praso<J v. Union of India A.LR. 1960 S.C. 689, The State of Oris.rn & Anr. v. Ram Narayan Das [1961] I S.C.R. 606, Madan Gopa/ v. State of Punjab [1963] 3 S.C.R. 716, Rajendra Chandra Banerjee v. Union of India [1964] 2 S C.R. 135, Champc1klal Chimanfal Shah v. The Union of India [1964] 3 S.C.R. 190, Jagdlsh Mitter v. Union of India A.I.R. 1%4 S.C. 449, State of Punjab & Anr. v. Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur [1968] 3 S.C.R, 234, Union of India

H

U.P. v. RAM CHANDRA TRIVEDI (Jaswant Singh, J.)

463

& Ors. v. R. S. Dhaba (1969] 3 S.C.C. 603. State of Bihar & Ors. v. Shiva BJUkshuk Mishra (1971] 2 S.C.R. 191, R. S. Sir.ti v. The State of U.P. & Or~. [1974] 3 S.C.R. 754, Shamsher Singh & Anr. v. State of Puniab [1975] 1 S.C.R. 814 and The Regional Manager & Anr. v. Pawan Kumar Dubey [1976] 3 S.C.R. 540. referred to.

'(2) Before it is held that an order terminating the services of a Government servant amounts tQ punishment the Court must hold that either of the two tests, namely, (a) that the servant had, a right to the pdst or (b) that h.e had been visited with evil consequences such as forfeiture of pay etc., is satisfied. Therefore, an order terminating the services of a temporary servant or proba, tioner under the Rules of employment and without anything more will not attract Art. 311. Where a departmental enquiry is. contemplated but an enquiry is not in fact proceeded with, Art. 311 will not be attracted unless it can be shown that the order, though unexceptionable in form, is ma<le foJliowing a report based on misconduct. Even though misconduct, negligence, illefficiency or other disqualification may be the motive for the order of termination, if a right exists under the contract or the rules to terminate his services, then Art. 311(2) is not attracted unless the misconduct or negligence is the very founda- tion of the order. Where there are no express words in the impugned order itself, which throw a stigma oh the Government servant, the Court would not delve into secretariat files to discover whether some kind or stigma could be inferred on such research.

[469 A-B; 473 C; 471 H; 475 Fl

Parshotam Lal Dliingra v. Union of India [1958] S.C.R. 828, R. S. Sia/ v. The State of U.P. & Ors. [1974] 3 S.C.R. 754, Shamsher Singh &: Anr. v. State of Punjab [1975] 1 S.C.R. 814 and l. N. Saksemi v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1967] 2 S.C.R. 496 followed.

( 3) The respondent was a temporary hand and had no right to the post. Under the contract of service and the service rules applicable the State had the right to terminate his services by giving him one month's notice. The order ex-facie is an order of termination of service simpliciter. It dOC8 not cast any stigma on the respondent nor does it visit him with evil conse- quences, nor is it founded on misconduct. Therefore, the respondent could not Invite the Court to go into the motive behind the order and claim the protecti6n of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution.

[475 D-E]

to him

{ 4) The High Court failed to appreciate the true legal and constitutional position and upset the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below, ignoring the well settled principle of law that a second appeal cannot be entertained on the ground of erroneous findings of fact, however, gross the error might seem to be.

[475 G-H]

Paras Nath Thakur v. Smt. Mohani Das &: Ors. (1960] 1 S.C.R. 271 Sri Sinna Ramanuja !~er & Ors. v. Sri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer &: Anr. [196::i] 2 S.C.R. 509, P. Ramachandra Ayyar v. Ramalingam [1963] 3 S.C.R. 604 and Madamanchi Ramappa & Anr. v. Muthaluru Bojappa [1964] 2 S.C.R. 673, referred lo.

·

A

B

C -

D

E

F

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 258/76.

6

.

Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 3-1-75

of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 2261/66.

G .. N. Dikshit and 0. P. Rana, for the Appellant.

Promod Swarup and Manoj Swarup, for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H

JASWi\NT SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against

464

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1977] l S.C.R.

the judgment and decree dated January 3, 1975, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad setting aside the judgment and decree dated July 27, 1965, of the Second Additional Civil Judge, Jhansi, whereby the latter affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismis sing the respondent's suit for declaration that order dated November 29, 1961, passed by the Superintending Engineer, Circle IV, Irrigati'Oll Works, Jhansi, U.P. terminating the services of the respondent was void and ineffective in law and he was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2147 / as arrears of pay and dearness allowance from the appellant.

The facts leading to this appeal are : The respondent herein was appointed as a temporary clerk in Gur Sarain Canal Division, Jhansi, on May 16, 1954. Seven years. later, he was required to appear in a departmental examination which was held in July, 1961. On July 12. In 1961, an optional typewriting test was held by the Department that test the Executive Engineer, Investigation and Planning Division. Jhansi, it is alleged, detected Gopal Deo Santiya, a clerk of Bhandcr Canal Division, attempting to personatc and appear for the respondent. He obtained t11e explanation of both the clerks and reported the matter to the Superintending Engineer of his Division. Considering the ex plan:itions tendered by the clerks to be unsatisfactory, the Superintending Engmeer brought the matter to the notice-of the Chief Engineer, Irriga tion Department, Lucknow. The Chief Engineer wrote back to the Superintending Engineer asking him to award suitable punishment to the aforesaid two clerkis. The Suoerintending Engineer thereafter issued orders terminating the services of both the clerks. The order that was passed in respect of and served on the respondent ran as follows : -

"No. E-70/IV /259

Dated Jhansi, November 29, 1961

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Shri Ram Chandra Trivedi, Temoorary Routine Grade Clerk is hereby served with one month's notice to the effect that his services shall not be required after one month from the date of receipt of this Notice.

Sd/- S. P. Sahni. Superintending Engineer."

The respondent attempted to have

the above order rescinded by making representations to the Chief Engineer, and the Minister of Irri gation, U.P. which proved abortive. The respondent thereupon chal lenged the aforesaid order of termination of his services by instituting the aforesaid suit averring inter a/ia that the order not being an order of termination of his service simnliciter but bPing one passed bv way of punishment, attracted the applicability of Article 311 of the Consti tution which not having been complied with rendered the order void and ineffective in law. The suit was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the respondent was only a temporary hand; that under the contract of service as also the rules applicable. to temporary Government ser vants, the respondent was liable to be dischamed any time even though an enquiry in respect of a charge of misconduct might have been insti-

8

c

D

E

F

G

H

j

u. P. ,._ RAM .CHANDRA TRIVEDI (la.want Singh, I.)

.465

tutcd against him; and that the i;,,pugned ~rder not having bc~n l?assed as a measure of punishment but being a sunple .order of t~rmma!!~n. of the respondent's services without cas~ng any stigma on him or .vmting him with evil consequences, was valid both under the aforesa~d rules and the contract of senice. The grotmds of attack made agamst the impugned order did not find favour with the trial Court w~ich dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trrnl Court, !11.e rc;opond00t took tho matter in appeal to the Second Add1rlonal ClVll Judge, Jhansi, who affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

Both the Courts found that the impugned order was valid in law as it was a simple order of termination of service and not having been passed by way of punishment, it did not attract the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. Dissatisfied with these judgments, the respondent preferred a second appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which as already stated was allowed by a learned Single Judge of that Court.

\\1tile oversetting the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the coiirts below and decreeing the respondent's aforesaid suit, the learned single Judge went through the official correspondence preceding the passing of the impugned order and observed that a close scrutiny of the facts on record showed that the order was passed by way of punishment on the basis of the enquire proceedings and as a result of the recom mendation made by the Executive Engineer followed by the direction issued by the Chief Engineer that the respondent should be suitably. punished. It is against this judgment and decree that the present appeal has been preferred by the State of U.P.

.

.Mr. Dixit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has urged that the High Court acted illegally in reversing the concurrent findings of fact ;urived at by the courts below and quashing the im pugned order which was a simple order of temtination of the respon- dent's services and had been validly passed in accordance with the rules relating to temporary Government servants and the contract of service. !Ie has further contended that the learned Single Judge could not probe into the departmental files to support his finding that the impugned order was passed against the respondent by way of punishment. He has in support of his submissions, relied upon a number of decisions of this Court.

As against this, lt has been vehemently urged by Mr, Garg, learned cotmsel for the reSJ?Ondent, that the constitutional position in regard to the orders of the impugned nature is not well settled in view of the c.on1licting ~ecisions of this Court particularly in view of the observa- tions made m State of U.P. & Ors. v. Suf!har Sineh(') anrl ThD State of Punjab v. P. S. Cheemi1( 2 ), Mr. Garg has further contended that the c_rrcumsta_nccs attending the issue of the impugned order clearly estab- lish that 11 was passed by way of. punishment .

A

B

D

E

F

G

. I~ would, i!I our opini~n, be appropriate at the outset to refer to the dec1S1ons of this Court which have an important bearing on the instant

H

(I) [1974) 2 S.C.R. 335=[1974] l S.C.C. 218. (2) A.LR 1975 S.C. 1096 •.

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

466

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(1977) 1 S.C.R.

case and to dispel the doubts sought to be created by Mr. Garg with regard to the constitutional position in relation to the applicability of Article 311 ( 2) of the Constitution, resulting from the said decisions.

In Satish Chandra Anand v. The Union of India('), it was held by . this Court that any and every termination of service does not amount to dismissal or removal and a termination of service brought about by exercise of a contractual right is not per se dismissal or removal. On laid down in Shyam Lal v. State of this Court the same reasoning, retirement in U.P. (") that the termination of service by compulsory terms of specific rule regulating the conditions of service is not tant amount to the infliction of punishment and does not attract Article 311(2).

In Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of /lldia( 3) which is regarded as the Magna Carta of the Indian Civil Servant, Das, C.J. speaking for the majority made the following illuminating observations : -

"Shortly put, the principle is that when a servant has the right to a post or to a rank either under the terms of coniraet of employment, express or implied, or under the rules governing the conditions of his service, the termination of the service of such a servant or his reduction to a-lower post is by itself and prima facie a punishment, for it operates as a forfeiture of his right to hold that post or that rank and to get the emoluments and other benefits attached thereto. But if the servant has no right to the post, as where he is appointed to a post, permanent or temporary either on pro bation or on an officiating basis and whose temporary service has not ripened into a quasi-permanent service as defined in the Temporary Service Rules, the termination of his employ ment does not deprive him of any right and cannot, there fore, by itself be a punishment. One test for determining whether the termination of the service of a Government ser vant is by way of punishment is to ascertain whether the servant, but for such termination, had the right to hold the post. If he had a right to the post as in the three cases hereinbefore mentioned, the termination of his service will by itself be a punishment and he will be entitled to the pro In other words and broadly speak tection of Article 311. ing, Art. 311 (2), will apply to those cases where the Govern ment servant, had he been employed by a private employer will be entitled to maintain an action for wrongful dismissal'. removal or reduction in rank. To put it in another way, if the Government has" by contract, express or implied, or, under the rules, the nght to terminate the employment at any time, then such termination in the manner provided by the contract or the rules is, prima fade and per se, not a punish ment and docs not attract the provisions of Art. 311. three the It does. not. however: follow that, except in termination of

cases mentioned above, m all other cases,

(!) (1953] S.C.R. 655. (2) [1955] l S.C.R. 26. (3) [1958] S.C.R. 828.

;f

(

u. P. v. RAM CHANDRA TRIVEDI (Jaswant Singh, J.)

467

service of a Government servant who has no right to his post, e.g., where he was appointed to a post, temporary or per manent, either on probation or on an officiating basis and had not acqurred a quasi-permanent staLUs, the term1nac1on cannot, in any circumstance, be dismissal or removal from service by way of punishment. Cases may arise where the Government may find a servant unsuitable for the post on account of misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other dis• qualification. If such a servant was appointed to a post, permanent or temporary, either on probation or on an officiat ing basis, then the very transitory character of the employ ment implies that the employment was terminable at any time on reasonable notice given by the Government. Again if the servant was appointed to a post, permanent or temporary, on the express condition or term that the employment would be terminable on say a month's notice as in the case of Satish Chander Anand v. The Union of India (supra), then the Government might at any time serve the requisite notice. In both cases the Government may proceed to take action against the servant in exercise of its powers under the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, or under the rules regulating the conditions of service, if any be appli the Government cable, and ordinarily in such a situation will take this course. But the Government may the view that a simple termination of service is not enough and that the conduct of the servant has been such that he deserves a punishment entailing penal consequences. In such a case the Government may choose to proceed against the servant on- the basis of his misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or the like and inflict on him the punishment of dismissal, removal In or reduction carrying with it the penal consequences. such a case the servant will be entitled to the protection of Art. 311 (2).

take

The position may, therefore, be summed up as follows : Any and every termination of service is not a dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. A termination of service brought about by the exercise of a contractual right is not per se dismissal or removal, as has been held by this Court (supra). in_ Sat~sh Chander ;tn~nd v. The _LJnion of India Likewise the termmat1on of service by compulsory retire ment in terms of a specific rule regulating the conditions of service is not tantamount to the infliction of a punishment and does not attract Art. 311 (2), as has also been held by this Court in Shyam Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh In either of the two above mentioned cases the (supra). termination of the service did not carry with it the panel consequences of loss of pay, or allowances .under r. 52 of the Fundamental Rules. the misconduct negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification may be th; motive or the inducing factor which influences the Govern ment to take action under the terms of the contract of employment or the specific service rule, nevertheless, if a

It is true that

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

SCPREJ\1E COURT REPORTS

[1977) l S.C.R.

terminate

the termination

right exists, under the contract or the rules, to terminate the s·crvice the motive operative on the mind of the Government is as Chagla C.J. has said in Shriniras Ga11esh v. Union oj l~dia(') wholly irrelevant. In short, if the termination of ser the vice is founded on the right flowing from contract of service rules tUJcn, prima facie, is not a punishment and carries with it no evil consequences and so Art. 311 is not attracted. But even if the Government has, by contract or under the rules, the right to the employment without going through the procedure prescribed for inflicting the punishment of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, the Government may, nevertheless, choose to punish the servant and if the termination of service is sought to be founded 011 misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification, then it is a punishment and the requirements of Art. 311 must be complied with. As already stated if the servant has got a right to continue in the post, then, unless the contract of employment or the rules provide to the contrary, his services cannot be terminated otherwise than for misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other good and sufficient cause. A termination of the service of such a servant on such grounds must be a punishment and, there fore, a dismissal or removal within Art. 311, for it operates as a forfeiture of his right and he is visited with the evil It puts an consequences of loss of pay and allowances. indelible stigma on the officer affecting his future career. A reduction in rank likewise may be by way of punishment If the Government ser or it may be an innocuous thing. vant has a right to a particular rank, then the very reduction from that rank will operate as a penalty, for he will then lose the emoluments and privileges of that rank. If, however, he has no right to the particular rank, his reduction from an officiating higher rank to his substantive lower rank will not ordinarily be a punishment. But the mere fact that the ser vant has no title to the post or the rank and the Government has, by contract, express or implied, or under the rules, the right to reduce him to a lower post does net mean that an order of reduction of a servant to a lower post or rank can not in any circumstances be a punishment. The real test for determining whether the reduction in such cases is or is not by way of punishment is to find out if the order for the reduc tion also visits the servant with any penal consequences. Thus if the order entails or provides for the forfeiture of his pay or allowances or the Joss of his seniority in his substan tive rank or the stoppage or postponement of his future chances of promotion, then that circum'>tance may indicate that although in form the Government. had purported to exercise its right to term;nate the employment or to reduce the servant to a lower rank under the terms of the contract of emoloyment or under the rules, in truth and the _ ~_.'."'.~ernmen!_ ~~s terminated the employment as and by way

reality

(!)A.LR. 1956 Bo'll. 455.

u. P. I'. RAM CHANDRA TRIVEDI (Jaswa./11 Singh, J.)

469

of penalty. The use. of the expression 'l'Crminate', or. 'dis charge' is not conclusive. In spite of the use of sud1 inno cuous expressions, the court has to apply the two test~ men tioned above, namely, ( J) whether the servant had. '1: nght .to the post or the rank or (2). whethe~ he has been V!Slted?w1th If evil consequences of the kmd herembeforc r~fcrred to . the case satisfied either of the two tests then it must be held that the servant has been punished and the termination of his service must be taken as a dismissal or removal from ser vice or the ·reversion to his substantive rank must be regard ed as a reduction in rank and if the requirements of the rules and Art. 311, which give protection to. G~vernment serv~nt have not been complied with, the termmat1on of the. serv1i::e or the reduction in rank must be held to be wrongful and m violation of the constitutional right of the servant."

In Gopi Kishore Prasad v. Union of 1n4ia('), it was ~eld by this Court that if the Government proceeded agamst the probationer m the direct way without casting any aspersion on his honesty or eompete~ce, his discharge wonld not have the effect of removal by way of pumsh ment, but if instead of taking the easy course, the Government chose the more difficult one of holding an enquiry into his alleged miscon duct and branded him as a dishonest and incompetent officer, it would attract Article 311 ( 2) of the Constitution.

In The State of Orissa & Anr. v. Ram Narayan Das(2) where ON. July 28, 1954, a notice was served on the respondent who was appoint ed as a Sub-Inspector on probation in the Orissa Police Force in the year 1950 to show cause why he should not be discharged from service for gross neglect of duties and unsatisfactory work and where the explanation tendered by him was considered to be unsatisfactory by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police who passed an order dis charging the respondent from service for unsatisfactory work and con duct and where the respondent contended that the order was invalid on two grounds : (i) that he was not given a reasonable opportunity the meaning of to show cause against the proposed action within to Article 311 (2), and (ii) that he was not afforded an opportunity be heard nor was any evidence taken on the charge, it was held that the order of discharge did not amount to dismissal and did not attract the protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution as the respondent was a probationer and had no right to the post held by him and his services were terminated in accordance with the rules which permitted his being discharged at any time dilring the period of probation.

The case of Madan Gopal vt State of Punjab(') where the order terminating the employment of the appellant who was a temporary Government servant wa~ ouashed on the ground that it was the nature of an order of punishment which had been passed without com plying with the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution is clearly distinguishable. In that case, the order of termination of the (l)-A-:1.R: 1960 S.C. 689. (2) [1961] 1 S.C.R. 606. (3) [1963] 3 S.C.R. 716.

iu

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

(

\

470

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1977] 1 S.C.R.

A

appellant's service which was prw~ded by ~ enquiry in~o his alleged misconduct was based on the findmg of misconduct which amounted to casting a stigma affecting his future career.

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

In Rajendra Chandra Banerjee v. Union of India(') where

the appellant was appointed as a probationer for one year (which was extended from time to time) on condition that his services might be that terminated without any notice and cause being assigned during period and he agreed and joined the service and where later on during the period of his probation, he was called upon to show cause why his services should not be terminated and he was finally informed that the explanation given by him was not satisfactory and his services would stand terminated on a specified date, it was held by this Court that the termination of his service was not by way of punishment and could not amount to dismissa! or removal within the meaning of Article 311.

In Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. The Union of India(') where the appellant, whose appointment being temporary, was liable to be ter minated on one month's notice on either side was informed without assigning any cause after the expiry of about five years tliat his services would be terminated with effect from a specified date but before the termination, he was called upon to explain certain irregularities and was also asked to submit his explanation and to state why discipli nary action shou!d not be taken against him and certain preliminary enquiries were also held against him in which he was not heard, but no regular departmental enquiry followed and the proceedings were dropped, it was held by this Cou):t after considering the cases of Gopi Kishore Prasad v. Union of India (supra), State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das (supra), Madan Gopal v. State of Punfab (supra) and Jagdish Mitter v. Union of lndia( 3 ) that such a regular departmental enquiry though contemplated was not held against the appellant and no punitive action was taken against him, there was no question of the case being governed by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. It was further held in that case that it is only when the Government decides inflictmg to hold a regular departmental enquiry for the purpose of one of the three major pw1ishments that the Government servant gets the protection of Article 311.

respondent

In State of Punjab & Anr. v. Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur( 4 ) where the Punjab Government reverted the from his officiating appointment in the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) to his substantive post in the Delhi Administrative after issuing him a charge sheet to which the respondent replied but the enquiry was not pro ceeded with, it was held by this Court that the respondent could not complain against the order reverting him to his former post because the order of reversion was not by way of punishment. In that case, Mitter, J. who spoke for the Bench laid down the following propositions : -

(I) [1964] 2 S.C.R. 135. (2) (1964] 5 S.C.R. 190. (3) A.IR. 1964 S,C. 449. (4) [1968] 3 S.C.R. 234.

u. P. v. RAM CHANDRA TRIVEDI (Jaswant Singh, J.)

4 71

"l. The services of a temporary servant or a probationer can be terminated under the rules of his employment and such termination without anything more would not attract the operation of Art. 311 of the Constitu tion.

2. The circumstances preceding or attendant on t;he order of termiiiation of service have to be examined in each case, the motive behind it being immaforial.

3. If the order visits the public servant with any evil consequences or casts an aspersion against his charac ter or integrity, it must be considered to be one by way of punishment, no matter whether he was a mere pro bationer or a temporary servant.

4. An order of termination of service in unexceptionable form preceded by an enquiry launched by the superior authorities only to ascertain whether the public servant should be retained in service, does not attract the opera tion of Art. 311 of the Constitution.

5. If there be a full-scale departmental enquiry envisag ed by Art. 311 i.e. an Enquiry Officer is appointed, a charge sheet submitted, explanation called for and considered, and order of termina~ion of service made thereafter will attract the operation of the said Article."

The principles laid down in Parshotam Lal Dhingra's case (supra), 'Champaklal Chimanlal Sfiah's case (supra), and Shri Sukh Raj Baha dur's case (supra) were reiterated by this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. R. S. Dhaba('), State of Bihar & Ors. v. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra( 2 ) and R. S. Sial v. The State of U.P. & Ors.( 3 ) where it was laid down that the test for attracting Article 311 (2) of the Constitu tion is whether the misconduct or negligence is a mere motive for the order of reversion or termination of service or .whether it is the very foundation of the order of termination of service of the temporary employee. The form of the order, however, to its true nature. The entirety of circumstances preceding or attendant on the impugned order must be examined by the court and the over riding test will always be whether the misconduct is a mere motive or is the very foundation of the order.

is not conclusive

In R. S. Sial v. The State of U.P. & Ors. (8 ) to which one of us (brother Khanna, J.) was a party, it was made clear. in unambiguous ·terms that it may be taken to be well settled that even though mis· conduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualifications may be the motive or the inducing factor which influence the Government to take action under the express or implied terms of the contract of employ ment or under the statutory rule, nevertheless if a right exists, under (1) [1969) 3 s.c.c. 603. (2) [1971] 2 S.C.R. 191. {3) [1974] 3 S.C.R. 754.

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

472

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[l 977] 1 S.C.R.

the contract or the rules to terminate the services the motive operating · immaterial. The same on the mind of the Governments is wholly rule would hold good if the order passed is not for tiermination of service but for reversion of a Government servant from a higher post to a lower post which he holds in a substantive capacity.

The decision of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Sughar Singh (supra) where the order of the respondent's reversion held to have been passed by way of punishment to which our attention has been drawn by Mr. Garg and which has led to a 1;ertain amount of misunderstanding turned upon a clear statement made before the High Court by the Standing Counsel for the State that the foundation of the order of reversion was the adverse entry made in his confidential character roll.

The constitutional position has now been made crystal clear by a Bench of seven Judges of this Court in Shamsher Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab(') where the learned Chief Justice after an exhaustive re view of the decisions of this Court observed : -

"No abstract preposition can be laid down that where the services of a probationer are terminated without saying anything more in the order of termination than that the ser vices are terminated it can never amount to a punishment If a probationer in the facts and circumstances of the case. is discharged on the ground of misconduct, or inefficiency or for similar reason without a proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against his discharge it may in a given case amount to removal from ser vice within the meaning of Article 311 (2) of the Constitu tion.

Before a probationer is confirmed the authority concern ed is under an obligation to consider whether the work of the probationer is sa.tisfactory or whether he is suitable for the .Jn the absence of any Rules governing a probationer post. in this respect the authority may come to the conclusion that tempern on acount of inadequacy for the job or for any mental or other object not involving moral turpitude ·the pro bationer is unsuitable for the job and hence must be discharg ed. No punishment is involved in this. The authority may in some cases be of the view that the conduct of the proba tioner may result in dismissal or removal on an inquiry. But in those cases the authority may not hold an inquiry and may · simply discharge the probationer with a view to giving him a chance to make good in other walks of life without a stigma If, on the other at the time of termination of probation. hand, the .probationer is faced with an enquiry on charges of misconduct or inefficiency or corruption, and if his services following the provisions of Article are terminated without 311( 2) he can claim protection.

(1) [1975] 1 S.C.R •. 814.

\

/ -

{

u. P. v. RAM CHANDRA :rRLVEDI (laswa.nt Singh, J.)

473

The fact of holding an inquiry is not always conclusive. What is decisive is whether the order is really by .way .of punishment ...... A probationer whose .terms ,of service provided -that it could be terminated without any notice and without any cause being ·assigned could not claim the pro tection of Article 311 ( 2).

An order.terminating the services of a temporary servant or probationer under the Rules of Employment and without anything more will not attract Article 311. Where a depai;t mental enquiry is. contemplated and if mi enquiry is not in fact proceeded wilh Article 31l will not be attracted unless it can be shmyi1' Jhat the order though unexceptionable in form .is m{ld~ Jot/owing_ a report based on ·misconduct." ·. - ~

. t. -

. •

. .

J ~

·- .

\

-~

.

.

,

.

.

'

'

-

-

Tb.e Division Bench judg;neni of.this Court in P; S. Cheema's case (supra) on which strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Garg is also clearly distinguishable and no help can be derived therefrom by the responcl.ttnt. · In that case, both the trial Court and the first appellant Court J:iad come to a concurrent finding of fact that the impugned order of termination .was by way of punishment. It would also be seen tqat in that case on a representation being made by the respon dent to .tJ:ie then Chief Minister of the State, the latter after considera tion of the matter had ordered that in view of the respondent's previ ous good recorci, .he did not deserve the "punishment of termination of · service only on account of a few bad reports and that the respondent · should .continue jn service and his case should be reviewed after he earned another report from the -Excise and Taxation Commissioner for the year 1964-65".

In a r.ecent decision of this Court in The Regional Manager & Anr. v. Pawan Kumar Dubey(') to whi_ch oiie of us was a party, Sughar Singh's case (supra) .w.hich is the sheet anchor of Mr. Garg's cp'nten tion was also adverted to and it was explained thereiii that that case did not depart from earlier decisions on applicability of Article 311 (2) or Art.icle 16 of the Constitution. The following observations made in Pawan Kumar Dubey's case (supra) should suffice to clear. the doubts that may still be lurking in some quarters as to the ratio deci- dendi of Sughar Singh's case (siipra) : -

· · ··

· ·· ·

·

--

A

B

c

D

E

F

· _ - ''We thi111< _tha(the prinCiples involved in applying Article 311 (2) having be«n suffic\ently explained in Shamsher Singh's case (supra) it should no longer be possible to urge that Sughar Singh's case (supra) could give rise to some misapprehension of the law. that the principles of law declared and applied so often have really changed. But the application of the same law to the differing circumstances and f~cts of various cases which

Indeed, we do not think

G

H

(I) [1976] 3 S.C. R. 540.

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

474

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1977] 1 S.C.R.

the

have come up to this Court could create impression sometimes that there is some conflict between different deci sions of this Court. Even where there appears to be some conflict, it would, we think, vanish when the ratio decidendi of each case is correctly understood. It is the rule deducible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of a case which constitutes its ratio decidendi and not some conclusion based upon facts which may appear to be similar. One additional or different fact can make a world of diffe rence between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are appli~d in each case to similar facts. This Court's judgment in Sughar Singh'~ case (supra) shows that it was only following the law on Article 311 (2) of the Con stitution as laid down repeatedly earlier by this Court. It specifically referred to the following cases : Parslwttam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India (supra); State of Punjab v. Sukh Raj Bahadur (supra); State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das (supra); R. C. Lucy v. State of Bihar(1•) Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India (supra); A. G. Benjamin v. Union of India( 2 ); Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v. ·State of Madhya Pra desh(8); Union of India v. Gajendra Singh(~); Divisional Personnel Officer v. Raghavendrachar( 5 ); Union of India v. loswant Ram( 6 ); Madhav v. State of Mysore( 7 ); State of Bombay v. Abraham( 8 ). In Sughar Singh's case (supra), this Court summarised the propositions of law deducible from the cases mentioneq above; and, while considering the appli cability of some of the propositions of law to. the facts of the case, it did observe that, on the face of it, the action against Sughar Singh did not appear to be punitive. Nevertheless, on a total consideration of all the facts, including the admis sion in the High Court before Verma, C.J. by the Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, that the reversion order could not be explained except as a result of the adverse entry made two years earlier, it had finally applied the ratio decidendi of the State of Bihar v. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra (supra), where this Court had affirmed the opinion of the High Court, on facts, that the reversion was not in the usual course or for administrative reasons but it was after the find ing on an enquiry about some complaint against the Plaintiff and by way of punishment to him.

On this view of the case, it was not really necessary for this Court to conside_r whether the reversion of Sughar Singh was contrary to the provisions of Article 16 also.

(1) C.A. No. 590 of 1962 decided on 23-10-1963 . (2) [1967] 1 S.C.R. 718. (3) [1970] 1 S.C.R. 472. (4) [1972] 2 S.C.R. 660. (5) [1966] 3 S.C.R. 106. (6) A.LR. 1958 S.C. 905. (7) [1962] 1 S.C.R. 886. (8) [1962] Supp. 2 S. C.R. 92.

u. P. v. RAM CHANDRA TRIVEDI (Jaswant Singh,!.)

475

We do not think that Sughar Singh's case (supra) in any way, conflicts with what has been laid down by this Court previously on Article 311 (2) of the Constitution or Article 16 of the Constitution."

from tlil.e decisions of

Thus on a conspectus of the decisions of this Court referred to above, it is obvious that there is no real conflict in their ratio decidendi and it is no longer open to any one to urge with any show of force that the constitutional position emerging ti).is Court in regard to cases of the present nature is not clear. It is also to be borne in mind that even in cases where a High Court finds any con- fliCt between the views expressed by larger and smaller benches of this Court, it cannot disr.egard or skirt the views expressed by the larger benches. The proper course for a High Court in such a case, as observed by this Court in Union of India & Anr. v. K. S. Subrama nian(') to which one of us was a party, is to try to find out and follow the opinion expressed by larger benches of this Court in preference to those expressed by smaller benches of the Court which practice, hardened as it has into a rule of law is f~llowed by this Court itself.

Keeping in view the principles extracted above, the respondent's suit could not be decreed in his favour. He was a temporary hand It is also not denied that both under and had no right to the post. the contract of service and the service rules governing the respondent, the State had a right to terminate his services by giving him one month's notice. The order to which exception is taken i'S ex facie an order of termination of service simpliciter. It does not cast any stigma on the respondent nor does it visit him with evil consequences, nor is it founded on misconduct. In the circumstances, the respondent could not invite the Court to go into the motive behind the order and claim the protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution.

We, therefore, agree with the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the High Court was in error in arriving at the finding that the impugned order was passed by way of punishment by probing into the departmental correspondence that passed between the superiors of the respondent overlooking the observatioris made by this .Court in l. N. Saksena v. State of Madhya Pradesh( 2 ) that when there are no express words in the impugned order itself which throw a stigma on the Government servant, the Court would not delve into Secretariat files to discover whether some kind of stigma could be inferred on such research.

We also find ourselves in agreement with the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that the High Court failed to appreciate the true regal and constitutional position and upset the concurrent findings that the impugned order was of fact arrived at by the Courts below not by way of punishment ignoring the well settled principle: of law that a second appeal cannot be entertained on the ground of erroneous finding of fact, however gross the error might seem to be. (See Paras

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

(I) [1977] 1 S.C.R. 87. ( 2) [19671 2 S.C.R. 496.

476

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1977} 1 S.C.R.

A

B

Nath Thakur v. Smt. Mohani Dasi & Ors.(1); Sri Sinna Ramanuja Jeer & Ors. v. Sri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer & Anr.( 2 ); R. Ramachandra Ayyar v. Ramalingamc:1) and Madamanchi Ramappa & Anr. v. Mutha luru Bojappa(4).

For the foregoing reasons, the contentions of Mr. Dixit are upheld

and those of Mr. Garg are repelled.

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and, the judgments and decrees of the decree of the High Court, restore Courts below and dismiss the respondent's suit. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are, however, left to pay and bear their own costs of this appeal.

V.P.S.

Appeal allowed.

(1) [1960] 1 S.C.R. 271. (2) [1962) 2 S.C.R. 509. (3) [l963J 3 S.C.R. 604. (4) [1964] 2 S.C.R. 673.