1993 (1) TMI 308 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the authority terminating the appellant's services.
2. Non-payment of salary and allowances in lieu of notice.
3. Termination as a form of punishment without an inquiry.
4. Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Authority Terminating the Appellant's Services:
The appellant was appointed as a Tool Maker Grade 'A' by the Director of DRDL but was terminated by the Deputy Director, who was subordinate to the Director. The appellant contended that the Deputy Director had no jurisdiction to terminate his services. The Supreme Court's decision in Om Prakash v. Union of India, 1975 (2) SLR 226, and Mohinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1976 (1) SLR 555, were cited, which held that only the appointing authority has the power to terminate services. The court concluded that since the appellant was appointed by the Director, only the Director had the authority to terminate his services. The delegation of powers to the Deputy Director under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, was not applicable to the appellant's case, as no delegation under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, was shown.

2. Non-Payment of Salary and Allowances in Lieu of Notice:
The appellant argued that his termination was invalid as he was not paid salary and allowances for one month in lieu of notice at the time of termination. The respondents countered this by stating in an additional affidavit that the appellant's salary and allowances for one month were sent by money order on the same day his services were terminated. The court accepted this statement and rejected the appellant's contention.

3. Termination as a Form of Punishment Without an Inquiry:
The appellant claimed that the termination was punitive, as the circumstances indicated it was a result of misconduct, and no inquiry was held. The court referred to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter-affidavit, which mentioned incidents involving the appellant that led to his termination. The court noted that the appellant, being a temporary employee, had no right to hold the post and that the authorities had two options: to hold an inquiry and take action based on the allegations or to terminate the service after a preliminary inquiry to ascertain suitability. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, : [1991]1SCR29, which upheld the termination of a temporary employee based on unsuitability without an inquiry. The court distinguished this case from Om Prakash Goel v. H.P. Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., : [1991]2SCR701a, as the latter was decided by a smaller bench.

4. Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India:
The appellant argued that his termination violated Articles 14 and 16, as his juniors were retained while he, the senior-most Tool Maker, was terminated. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Kaushal Kishore Shukla's case, which held that terminating a senior employee while retaining juniors does not violate the principles of equality if the senior is found unsuitable based on work and conduct. The court followed this precedent, rejecting the appellant's contention.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the termination order dated 2-1-1978, holding it was passed without jurisdiction, and set aside the single judge's order dated 3-1-1979. The appellant was ordered to be reinstated with full salary from December 1990 until the date of reinstatement. The Writ Appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.