1983 (9) TMI 258 - HC - Indian Laws

CEGAT (Now CESTAT) - Vice-President, discharge of - Natural justice - Hearing - Government servants - Quasi judicial posts - Appellate Tribunal - Termination of temporary Members -

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of the petitioner as Vice President.
2. Civil consequences and entitlement to an opportunity of hearing.
3. Nature of the impugned order: penal or simple reversion.
4. Arbitrariness of the impugned order.

Detailed Analysis:

Confirmation of the Petitioner as Vice President:
The petitioner argued that he had been confirmed as Vice President of the Customs Tribunal. However, this claim was not pressed by the petitioner's counsel, who accepted that the petitioner was holding a temporary appointment. The court found that there was no decision by the Government of India to confirm the petitioner, and thus, the petitioner was governed by the terms of his temporary appointment, which allowed for reversion with one month's notice.

Civil Consequences and Entitlement to an Opportunity of Hearing:
The petitioner contended that the reversion order entailed civil consequences, requiring an opportunity for a hearing. The court noted that while civil consequences cover a broad range of impacts, the termination of a temporary employee's service does not necessarily require a hearing unless it is punitive or casts a stigma. The court referenced several cases, including Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner and Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, to illustrate that not all actions with civil consequences necessitate a hearing, particularly when the action is in accordance with the terms of service.

Nature of the Impugned Order: Penal or Simple Reversion:
The petitioner argued that the reversion order was penal because it resulted in a reduction in pay and affected future career prospects. The court rejected this argument, stating that reversion to a previous post inherently results in a reduction of pay and does not constitute a penalty. The court also dismissed the claim that the order cast a stigma on the petitioner, noting that the order was a simple reversion without any punitive elements.

Arbitrariness of the Impugned Order:
The petitioner claimed that the order was arbitrary because it did not provide reasons for the reversion. The court held that the termination of a temporary employee's service does not require the government to provide reasons, as long as the action is in accordance with the terms of the appointment. The court referenced Ram Gopal v. State of M.P. and Govt. Branch Press v. D.B. Belliappa to support this view. The court also found that the Union of India had provided a justification for the reversion, stating that the petitioner's performance was not satisfactory, which did not amount to casting a stigma.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the impugned order of reversion was valid, as it was in accordance with the terms of the petitioner's temporary appointment. The petitioner's arguments regarding civil consequences, punitive nature, and arbitrariness were rejected. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. The court also suggested that greater protection might be necessary for quasi-judicial posts like the Vice President of the Customs Tribunal, recommending that an independent agency review such decisions to ensure objectivity.