1996 (8) TMI 513 - SC - Indian Laws

Termination of service from Central Public Works Department - whether the appeal has been competently laid? - whether the delay has been properly explained in filing the special leave petition? - Held that - It is not disputed and cannot be disputed that the Union of India can lay the suit and be sued under Article 300 of the Constitution in relation to its affairs. The appeal came to be filed by the Secretary, though wrongly described. The nomenclature given in the cause title as Secretary instead of Union of India, is not conclusive. The meat of the matter is that the Secretary representing the Government of India had filed the appeal obviously on behalf of Union of India. Accordingly, we reject the first contention. Proper explanation for 217 days has accordingly been given in the affidavit filed in support of the SLP. We find that the explanation offered by the appellant is well acceptable and is accepted. Accordingly, the delay is not in our view a bar to consider the matter on merits. Dismissal order was the foundation for cause of action. After dismissal of the Departmental s appeal he laid the suit Accordingly, the suit came to be filed within limitation. The employer is entitled to terminate the services of its employee in terms of the order of appointment which confers power to take action in terms thereof. As seen, Rule 5 of Rules clearly gives power to terminate the services of the temporary servant in terms of the order of appointment. Until the temporary service matures into a permanent, he has no right to the post. At any point of time before that right accrues, it is open to the employer to terminate the service in terms of the order of appointment. The High Court wrongly applied the principle of dismissal followed by conviction for misconduct and acquittal thereof. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Competency of the appeal filed by the Union of India.
2. Explanation for the delay in filing the special leave petition.
3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation.

Competency of the appeal:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the appeal filed by the Secretary, Ministry of Works and Housing on behalf of the Union of India was competent. It was clarified that the Union of India can be sued under Article 300 of the Constitution, and in suits involving the Central Government, the plaintiff/defendant should be named as Union of India. Despite the nomenclature issue, the Court held that the appeal was properly filed by the Secretary representing the Government of India, and therefore rejected the contention challenging the competency of the appeal.

Explanation for the delay:
Regarding the delay in filing the special leave petition, the Court considered the circumstances leading to the delay. It was noted that the counsel representing the Union of India failed to inform the Government promptly after the High Court's decision. The Court accepted the explanation provided by the appellants, attributing the delay to the irresponsible conduct of the counsel. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay, emphasizing that the delay should not bar the consideration of the case on its merits.

Limitation of the suit:
The main issue revolved around whether the suit filed by the respondent was barred by limitation. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, specifically Article 58, which governs declarations. The respondent's right to sue first accrued on the date of termination of services, which was on September 10, 1957. As the suit was filed on August 13, 1965, beyond the three-year limitation period, the Court held that the suit was indeed barred by limitation. The Court rejected the respondent's argument that the cause of action arose after his acquittal, emphasizing that the employer had the authority to terminate services as per the appointment terms. Referring to previous judgments, the Court clarified that the dismissal order based on the appointment terms was valid and not unconstitutional, thus allowing the appeal and setting aside the Division Bench's judgment.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench's judgment, and ruled that the suit filed by the respondent was indeed barred by limitation, based on the termination of services in accordance with the appointment terms.