OM PRAKASH GOEL versus HIMACHAL PRADESH TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. SHIMLA AND ANR.

OM PRAKASH GOEL versus HIMACHAL PRADESH TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. SHIMLA AND ANR.

The termination order, though apparently innocuous, was a camouflage for punishment; it followed a chargesheet and enquiry and violated Articles 14 and 16 by arbitrarily discharging the petitioner while retaining juniors. Such termination is liable to be quashed. Petitioner is entitled to full back wages till enrolment as lawyer, and half subsistence allowance thereafter subject to deduction of actual earnings as lawyer.

Parties
Petitioner: OM PRAKASH GOEL; Respondents: HIMACHAL PRADESH TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. SHIMLA AND ANR.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 May 1991
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition / Supreme Court Final Order
Outcome
Termination order quashed; petitioner reinstated.
Legal Topics
Termination of Service, Service Regulations, Camouflage of Punishment, Discrimination, Back Wages
Civil Service Law Constitutional Law Termination of Service Service Regulations Camouflage of Punishment Discrimination Back Wages

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OM PRAKASH GOEL

Petitioner

HIMACHAL PRADESH TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. SHIMLA AND ANR.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition / Supreme Court Final Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination of service by simple notice after enquiry amounted to punishment and was a camouflage.
  2. 2 Whether terminating senior employee while retaining juniors was arbitrary and discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16.
  3. 3 Whether petitioner, who practised as a lawyer since termination, was entitled to backwages on reinstatement.

Ratio Decidendi

The termination order, though apparently innocuous, was a camouflage for punishment; it followed a chargesheet and enquiry and violated Articles 14 and 16 by arbitrarily discharging the petitioner while retaining juniors. Such termination is liable to be quashed. Petitioner is entitled to full back wages till enrolment as lawyer, and half subsistence allowance thereafter subject to deduction of actual earnings as lawyer.

Court Disposition

Termination order quashed; petitioner reinstated.

Orders

  • Petitioner to be reinstated in service.
  • Respondent-corporation may proceed with disciplinary enquiry if it so chooses.