1991 (1) TMI 438 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the termination order dated 23.9.1980 of the respondent's services, an ad-hoc and temporary employee, was vitiated in law.
2. Whether the termination order was discriminatory as juniors to the respondent were retained.
3. Whether the termination was based on an adverse entry in the respondent's character roll without giving him an opportunity to respond.
4. Whether the termination order was punitive in nature and violated Article 311 of the Constitution.

Summary:

1. Issue of Termination of Temporary Employee:
The Supreme Court examined whether the termination order dated 23.9.1980 of the respondent's services, an ad-hoc and temporary employee, was vitiated in law. The Court noted that the respondent was appointed on an ad-hoc basis and his services were extended periodically. The terms of his appointment allowed for termination at any time without assigning any reason. The Court held that under the U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975, and the terms of the contract, the respondent's services could be terminated without assigning any reason, thus the termination was lawful.

2. Discrimination and Retention of Juniors:
The High Court had held that the termination was discriminatory as juniors to the respondent were retained. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the principle of 'last come first go' applies to retrenchment due to reduction of work or shrinkage of cadre, not to the termination of a temporary employee based on work and suitability. The Court emphasized that retaining juniors who are found suitable does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

3. Adverse Entry and Opportunity to Respond:
The High Court found that the termination based on an adverse entry in the respondent's character roll without giving him an opportunity to respond was not in good faith. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the adverse entry and a preliminary inquiry into allegations of unauthorized audit provided adequate material for the competent authority to determine the respondent's unsuitability for service. The Court stated that a temporary employee has no right to hold the post and can be terminated in accordance with service rules and the terms of the contract.

4. Punitive Nature and Article 311 Violation:
The respondent argued that the termination was punitive and violated Article 311 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court clarified that a temporary employee's termination based on an assessment of work and conduct is not punitive if it follows the terms of the contract and relevant rules. The Court referred to precedents, including Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, which established that the form of the order is not conclusive, and the true nature of the order must be determined. The Court concluded that the termination was not punitive, as no formal charges were framed, and the inquiry was preliminary to assess suitability, not to impose punishment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the respondent's writ petition, affirming that the termination was lawful, non-discriminatory, and not punitive. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.