Important point
In what situation the allegation of misconduct will be motive and in what cases they will be foundation has to be adjudged in factual background of each case.

Headnote:Service Law—Order of termination of service—Question whether allegation of misconduct was motive or was a foundation has to be adjudged in factual background of each case—Respondent was appointed as Medical Officer on a fixed salary for a period of six months—Services could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason—Services were terminated—Writ challenged the order on plea that though in the face it appeared to be termination simplicitor but was relatable to alleged misconduct and was penal in nature—High Court did not consider the question of stigma or effect of any enquiry held before the order of termination was passed—High Court was not justified in interfering with order of termination.
       Held : In what situation the allegation of misconduct will be the motive and in what cases they will be foundation has to be adjudged in the factual background of each case. The issue has been examined in several decisions including several Constitution Bench judgments and a judgment of 7-judges. An elaborate analysis of the various decisions was made by this Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. and Anr. (1999(2) SCC 21). The matter was examined elaborately by 7-Judges in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. (1974(2) SCC 831). (Para 6)
       We find that the High Court did not consider the question of stigma or the effect of any enquiry held before the order of termination was passed. The question whether the enquiry purportedly held provided the motive or the foundation was required to be considered by the High Court in detail. That has not been done. The question whether termination of service is simpliciter or punitive has been examined in several cases e.g. Dhananjay v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna (2003(2) SCC 386) and Mathew P. Thomas v. Kerala State Civil Supply Corporation Limited and Ors. (2003(3) SCC 263). An order of termination simpliciter passed during the period of probation has been generating undying debate. The recent two decisions of this Court in Dipti Prakash Bamerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta (1999(3) SCC 60) and Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences (2002(1) SCC 520) after survey of most of the earlier decisions touching the question observed as to when an order of termination can be treated as simpliciter and when it can be treated as punitive and when a stigma is said to be attached to an employee discharged during the period of probation. The learned counsel on either side referred to and relied on these decisions either in support of their respective contentions or to distinguish them for the purpose of application of the principles stated therein to the facts of the present case. In the case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee (supra) after referring to various decisions it was indicated as to when a simple order of termination is to be treated as “founded” on the allegations of misconduct and when complaints could be only as a motive for passing such a simple order of termination. (Para 9)
       When the factual scenario of the present case is considered in the background of legal principles set out above, the inevitable conclusion is that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of termination. (Para 10)

Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—State of Haryana and Director General, Health Services, Haryana call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the order of termination passed by the authorities was without legal sanction.

2. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘employee’) was appointed as Medical Officer in the Directorate of Health, Services, Haryana by an order dated 6.11.1997 on a fixed salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month for a period of six months from the date of joining. It was clearly indicated in the letter of appointment that the services of the employee being on contractual basis could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason with 24 hours notice from either side. By order dated 25.3.2002 services of the employee were terminated. The same was challenged before the High Court by filing a writ petition.

3. Before the High Court it was urged by the writ petitioner that the order of termination, though in the face of it appears to be termination simpliciter, was relatable to alleged misconduct and, therefore, was penal in nature. Reference was made to a decision of this Court in A.P. State Federation of Coop. Spinning Mills Ltd. and Anr. v. P.V. Swaminathan (2001(10) SCC 83) to contend that the order of termination was founded on the alleged misconduct as stated in the order dated 25.3.2002. The formal order of termination involved adverse civil consequences. The stand of the opposite parties before the High Court (appellants herein) was that the misconduct may have provided a motive for the order of termination but not a foundation. The High Court by the impugned judgment held that the misconduct referred to was the foundation and not the motive. As the order involved civil consequences, therefore, the same could not have been passed without complying Principles of Natural Justice. The order was according to the High Court stigmatic. In the order passed by the State Government dated 25.3.2002 reference was made to the alleged misconduct of the employee and on the basis thereof the order of termination dated 11.4.2002 was passed. It was accordingly held that the employee was entitled to all the consequential benefits along with re-instatement. Liberty was, however, given to proceed further after complying with statutory rules governing service of the employees or the rules of natural justice as the case may be.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the order of termination as passed did not refer to any misconduct. It was a case of termination simpliciter. The reference to the misconduct of the employee as contained in the order dated 11.4.2002 was in relation to the allegations made against the employee, and no inquiry was conducted or finding of guilt arrived at. After perusing the appointment order and the entire record the Government took the decision to relieve the employee from suspension for termination in terms of appointment order with immediate effect. The misconduct alleged and referred to at the most can be treated as the motive for the order of termination but it was not the foundation.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that though the order of termination was on the face of it appeared to be termination simpliciter, in reality, it was outcome of the deliberations made and, therefore, was the foundation for the order of termination. It is submitted that allegations were made to the police as well as the Public Grievance Committee. Report was lodged with the police and considering the police report and without affording any opportunity to the employee, the proceedings were abandoned midway and the services of the respondent were terminated.

6. In what situation the allegation of misconduct will be the motive and in what cases they will be foundation has to be adjudged in the factual background of each case. The issue has been examined

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 1167

Important pointIn what situation the allegation of misconduct will be motive and in what cases they will be foundation has to be adjudged in factual background of each case.

Cases Referred (9)

Important point
In what situation the allegation of misconduct will be motive and in what cases they will be foundation has to be adjudged in factual background of each case.