Bishan Lal Gupta vs State Of Haryana

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1978 Supreme(SC) 5

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.H. BEG, C.J.I., P.N. BHAGWATI AND D.A. DESAI, JJ.
Bishan Lal Gupta Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and others, Respondents.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 3818 of 1976
Decided on 12-1-1978.
Advocates appeared
Mr. G. L. Sanghi, Sr. Advocate (Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate with him) for Petitioner; Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate (for Nos. 1 and 3) and Mr. Hardeo Singh and Mr. R. S. Sodhi, Advocates (for No. 2), for Respondents.

Headnote:
Constitution of India – Article 311 - No right to the post - Removal from service – Jurisdiction - Certain other cases have taken the view that it is open to the Court to go behind the order and find out if it was intended as a measure of punishment and if so whether the formalities necessary have not been followed. In cases where enquiries have been held before order of reversion of a probationer to his former lower post or discharge of a probationer or discharge from service of a temporary servant were passed, certain decisions have taken the view that where the enquiry was held in order to find out the suitability of the official concerned the order would not be vitiated. In certain other cases it has been held that the enquiry was held with a view to punish and as the enquiry did not satisfy the requirements of Art. 311 the punishment was bad – Held, It is impossible to lay down propositions which are so clear cut as to cover every conceivable case. Indeed, an attempt to do so may make the law too rigid. It is only if patent facts disclose a serious enough infringement of law as well as indubitably damaging and undeserved consequences upon a petitioner that the Courts conscience could be so moved as to induce it to interfere under Art. 136 of the Constitution. We are quite certain that this is not one of those cases. One this ground alone this case could not be one in which we could grant special leave to appeal - There is, however, another point of view also, already indicated above, from which the case could be considered. It is that the High Court held that this was not really a case of punishment. On this aspect of the case, the High Court rightly seems to us to have proceeded on the view that there should be atleast some difference, as to the nature of or the depth of the inquiry to be held, as between a probationer whose services can be terminated by a notice and a confirmed Govt. servant who has a right to continue in service until he reaches a certain age. It is true that neither can be "punished" without a formal charge and inquiry. But, a less formal inquiry may be sufficient, as it was here, to determine whether a probationer, who has no fixed or fully formed right to continue in service (treated in the eye of law as a case of "no right" to continue in service), should be continued. A confirmed Govt. servants dismissal or removal is a more serious matter. This difference must necessarily be reflected in the nature of the inquiries for the two different purposes. We are satisfied that, on facts found, the findings on petitioners suitability to continue in service were rightly not interfered with. It was, in the eye of law, not a case of punishment but of termination of service simpliciter. The petitioner should be thankful that a more serious view was not taken of his shortcomings - Court would certainly not interfere under Art. 136 of the Constitution on a merely technical plea that the case deserved a fuller enquiry. It must be shown that such an enquiry could serve a useful purpose. The facts must indicate that, if this fuller inquiry was held, the Govt. servant will be found to be blameless. Otherwise, further prolongation of such litigation is pointless - Petition dismissed

JUDGMENT

BEG, C.J.I. :—The Special Leave Petition before us arises out of a suit in which a point arose which had been referred for decision by a learned Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana to a larger Bench on the ground that it involved an important question that it involved an important question of law of some difficulty. This court issued notices to the State of Haryana and other parties and we have heard counsel for both sides. Although the case does not deserve grant of special leave, we propose to dismiss the petition with a statement of the position which may clarify what seems to have troubled the Judges of the High Court.

2. The petitioner before us had joined the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) as a probationer on 8th December, 1966. He was served with a show cause notice on 22nd October, 1968, asking him to explain certain allegations. He was served with another show cause notice on 18th June, 1969, asking him to explain probably the same, or at any rate, similar allegations again. He replied to the first show cause notice on 15th November, 1968, and to the second on 4th July, 1969. The High Court considered his explanations and found that they were similar but belied by documentary evidence on record.

3. The High Court then made a recommendation to the State Government that the services of the applicant may be terminated.

4. On 19th June, 1969, still another notice was served upon the applicant by the Chief Secretary to the Government which stated inter alia :

"It may be noted that both your earlier explanations and the one which you may submit now in pursuance of this revised notice, will be taken into consideration while determining your suitability for being retained in service. The reply to this notice should be sent through the Registrar. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, within the stipulated period."

5. After considering his further explanation the services of the applicant were terminated by an innocuously worded order dated 11th September, 1969. The submission on behalf of the petitioner was that, although, the order of termination of his services was innocuous, he was entitled to a fuller enquiry contemplated by Art. 311 of the Constitution as he was, in substance, punished. The petitioner relies strongly upon certain observations of this Court in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1975) 1 SCR 814 which was also the case of a probationer whose services had been terminated.

6. Reliance is placed on behalf of the State on : State of Punjab v. Sukh Raj Bahadur, (1968) 2 Serv LR 701 and Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1969 Serv LR 429 and S. P. Vesudeva v. State of Haryana, AIR 1975 SC 2292. In the last mentioned case. Alagiriswami J., speaking for the Court, observed (at p. 2294) :

"We may in this connection point out that where an order of reversion as in the present case, of a person who had no right to the post, does not show ex facie that he was being reverted as a measure of punishment or does not cast any stigma on him, the Courts will not normally go behind that order to see if there were any motivating factors behind that order. Certain cases of this Court have taken that view. Certain other cases have taken the view that it is open to the Court to go behind the order and find out if it was intended as a measure of punishment and if so whether the formalities necessary have not been followed. In cases where enquiries have been held before order of reversion of a probationer to his former lower post or discharge of a probationer or discharge from service of a temporary servant were passed, certain decisions have taken the view that where the enquiry was held in order to find out the suitability of the official concerned the order would not be vitiated. In certain other cases it has been held that the enquiry was held with a view to punish and as the enquiry did not satisfy the requirements of Art. 311 the punishment was bad."

It was also pointed out (at p. 2295 of AIR) :