- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Commissioner, Food A... v. Prakash Chandra Saxe...
Factual and Procedural Background
Respondent 1, Shri Prakash Chandra Saxena, was appointed in 1945 as a temporary Senior Inspector in the District Supply Office, Lucknow. His services were terminated on 14-7-1965 by a notice that paid him one month’s salary in lieu of notice. In 1978 he approached the State Services Tribunal, which initially rejected his claim as time-barred. The High Court remitted the matter for a decision on merits, and the Tribunal then held that the termination was punitive and violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The appellant State challenged that finding in Writ Petition No. 2016 of 1991, but the High Court dismissed the writ on 5-3-1993, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab. The present appeal to the Supreme Court followed; delay was condoned and leave to appeal was granted.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the State could terminate the services of a temporary government servant by a notice of termination simpliciter without holding a departmental enquiry.
- Whether the High Court was correct in applying the ratio of Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831 to set aside the termination.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831 | Distinction between “motive” and “foundation” in termination orders; need for a full enquiry when termination is founded on misconduct, especially for judicial officers protected under Article 355. | The High Court relied on this case, but the Supreme Court held it was inapplicable because it concerned a judicial officer and not a temporary government servant under the U.P. rules. |
| State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, (1991) 1 SCC 691 | Termination simpliciter of a temporary government servant under the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 is not a penalty and does not require an enquiry. | Reaffirmed by the Supreme Court as laying down the correct law applicable to the present case. |
| Triveni Shanker Saxena v. State of U.P., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 524 | Same principle as Kaushal Kishore Shukla; validates termination simpliciter without enquiry for temporary employees. | Cited as consistent authority supporting the State’s power to terminate a temporary servant without enquiry. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had misapplied Samsher Singh. That decision concerned a judicial officer whose constitutional protections rendered any executive enquiry into misconduct void; hence its ratio could not automatically govern the position of temporary government servants.
The Court reviewed the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 and reiterated the consistent line of authority in Kaushal Kishore Shukla and Triveni Shanker Saxena, which recognise the State’s contractual and statutory power to terminate a temporary employee without treating the action as punitive.
Although the Court upheld the legal validity of the State’s power, it exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to refrain from overturning the High Court’s ultimate relief. The respondent had served nearly 20 years before termination and had since superannuated. Equity therefore favoured maintaining his reinstatement while limiting his monetary relief.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART. The Court affirmed the State’s authority to terminate a temporary government servant without enquiry but, in exercise of discretion, directed that:
- The respondent shall be deemed in continuous service from the date of termination until the date of superannuation.
- No back wages are payable for the period 14-7-1965 to 31-12-1978.
- Arrears of salary from 1-1-1979 until superannuation and all consequential pensionary benefits are to be paid.
- No order as to costs.
Implications are confined to the parties: the decision leaves standing the established precedent that termination simpliciter of temporary staff under the U.P. rules is permissible without enquiry, while granting equitable relief to the respondent. No new legal principle has been laid down.
Order
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. Heard counsel for the parties. Respondent 1, while was working as Senior Inspector, District Supply Office, Lucknow, his services were terminated by proceedings dated 14-7-1965:
“The services of Shri Prakash Chandra Saxena, Senior Inspector, District Supply Office, Lucknow are terminated with effect from the date of service upon him of this order. He shall be paid one month's pay in lieu of notice.”
The said proceedings were challenged by Respondent 1 in the year 1978 by filing a claim petition before the Service Tribunal which was initially rejected by the Tribunal on the ground of delay. But the High Court remitted the matter for decision on merits and the Tribunal held that the order of termination had been made by way of punishment without enquiry and hence violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution. When it was challenged in Writ Petition No. 2016 of 1991 filed by the appellant, the High Court dismissed it by its order dated 5-3-1993, following the decision of this Court in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831 wherein it had been held that the Court had to lift the veil and find whether the ground of termination was the foundation or the motive and if it was found to be the foundation, the termination simpliciter would be illegal. It was pointed out that the enquiry initiated, when was stopped midway it would show that the enquiry into misconduct of Respondent 1 was abandoned while enquiry into the alleged misconduct had to be completed without which the termination would become illegal. The High Court was of the opinion that the ratio in Samsher Singh (1974) 2 SCC 831 was, obviously, not brought to the notice of this Court, while deciding State of U.P v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691, (1991) 16 ATC 498 and Triveni Shanker Saxena v. State of U.P 1992 Supp (1) SCC 524, (1992) 19 ATC 931, AIR 1992 SC 496 and hence they had been decided per incuriam. The High Court, therefore, applied the ratio of the decision in Samsher Singh (1974) 2 SCC 831 which according to it squarely applied to Respondent 1 and held that the termination of the services of the respondent was violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
3. In our view, the High Court was not right in its approach in upholding the order of the Tribunal. What is overlooked by the High Court is that Samsher Singh case (1974) 2 SCC 831 related to a judicial officer who had the protection of Article 355 of the Constitution and that, any enquiry conducted by the Executive, into an alleged misconduct of such judicial officer would be per se illegal and without jurisdiction. In that factual matrix, this Court had to hold that an enquiry having been initiated against the delinquent, had got to be pursued to its logical conclusion, that is, till it ended either in imposition of penalty on proof of misconduct or having been found not guilty of the charge. That was the background in which this Court laid the law. The High Court has totally misunderstood the applicability of the judgment in Samsher Singh (1974) 2 SCC 831. This Court has, indeed considered in catena of decisions, the nature of power of the Government exercisable in dismissal of a temporary government servant, in terms of the order of appointment or the rules entitled U.P Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975. Kaushal Kishore (1991) 1 SCC 691, (1991) 16 ATC 498 and Triveni Shanker Saxena 1992 Supp (1) SCC 524, (1992) 19 ATC 931, AIR 1992 SC 496 are two decisions of this Court where on consideration of the scope of the said rules, it is held that the termination simpliciter is not a penalty and the Government has power and jurisdiction under the contract of employment or the Rules to terminate simpliciter the services of a temporary government servant without conducting an enquiry and such termination simpliciter does not amount to termination for misconduct. The decisions in the said cases are being followed by this Court consistently.
4. In this case, we have seen that the respondent was appointed in 1945 as a temporary government servant and remained in service up to 1965 as a temporary government servant. Although we have found that the High Court was not right in applying the ratio of Samsher Singh (1974) 2 SCC 831 to case of Respondent 1 we do not consider it necessary to interfere with its conclusion in exercise of our discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution. Therefore, while we uphold the appellant's power to terminate the services of a temporary government servant under the said rules, without holding an enquiry, we do not propose to disturb the reinstatement of Respondent 1, since he was in service as a temporary government servant for nearly 20 years before his services were terminated and he has since been retired as well from service. Taking these facts into consideration, we hold that the respondent must be deemed to have been in service from the date of the termination till the date of his superannuation, but he is not entitled to the back wages from the date of termination till the date of his filing the petition in the Services Tribunal, that is up to 31-12-1978. He will, however, be entitled to the arrears of salary from 1-1-1979 and other consequential benefits including pensionary benefits as if he had continued as a regular government servant till his superannuation. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Alert