1969 Supreme(Del) 166

Delhi High Court
HARDAYAL HARDY,S. N. ANDLEY
Rajendra Sareen - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Civil Writ No.851 of 1968
Decided On : 09/18/1969

A temporary government servant appointed to a post for a definite period acquires a right to his tenure for that period which cannot be put an end to unless there is a special contract entitling the employer to do so on giving the requisite notice or the person so appointed is, on enquiry held on due notice to the servant and after giving him a reasonable opportunity, to defend himself found guilty of misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or any other disqualification and is by way of punishment dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank.

Headnote:

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - ARTICLES 311, 226 - PUNJAB PUBLIC RELATIONS SERVICE RULES, 1958 - RULE 10 - PUNJAB CIVIL SERVICES (PUNISHMENT AND APPEAL) RULES, 1952 - RULE 4 - PUNJAB CIVIL SERVICES RULES VOLUME II - RULE 5.9 (B) - WRIT PETITION - CHALLENGE TO TERMINATION OF SERVICE - MALA FIDES - NATURE OF POST - PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY - RIGHT TO HOLD THE POST - TERMINATION OF SERVICE WITH ONE MONTH'S NOTICE - VALIDITY. The petitioner, a State Press Liaison Officer, challenged the termination of his services by the State Government on the grounds of mala fides, the nature of the post held by him, and the right to hold the same. The Court held that there was no mala fides on the part of the respondents in terminating the petitioner's services. The Court further held that the post of State Press Liaison Officer was a temporary post and the petitioner's appointment to the post was also temporary. However, the Court held that the petitioner's appointment as Deputy Director ripened into a permanent appointment on the expiry of the period of probation and he became entitled to be confirmed in that post. The Court also held that the petitioner's subsequent transfer to the post of State Press Liaison Officer did not derogate from his status and rights as a permanent government servant. The Court further held that the termination of the petitioner's services without proper enquiry after due notice to him was in contravention of the constitutional guarantee under Article 311 of the Constitution. The Court also held that the petitioner's discharge from service by one month's notice was illegal and amounted to imposition of a penalty of removal or dismissal within the meaning of those expressions as used in Rule 4 (vi) and (vii) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. Accordingly, the Court quashed the order terminating the petitioner's services.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a State Press Liaison Officer, challenged the termination of his services by the State Government on the grounds of mala fides, the nature of the post held by him, and the right to hold the same.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that there was no mala fides on the part of the respondents in terminating the petitioner's services. The Court further held that the post of State Press Liaison Officer was a temporary post and the petitioner's appointment to the post was also temporary. However, the Court held that the petitioner's appointment as Deputy Director ripened into a permanent appointment on the expiry of the period of probation and he became entitled to be confirmed in that post. The Court also held that the petitioner's subsequent transfer to the post of State Press Liaison Officer did not derogate from his status and rights as a permanent government servant. The Court further held that the termination of the petitioner's services without proper enquiry after due notice to him was in contravention of the constitutional guarantee under Article 311 of the Constitution. The Court also held that the petitioner's discharge from service by one month's notice was illegal and amounted to imposition of a penalty of removal or dismissal within the meaning of those expressions as used in Rule 4 (vi) and (vii) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952.

Issues: 1. Whether there was mala fides on the part of the respondents in terminating the petitioner's services? 2. Whether the post of State Press Liaison Officer was a permanent or temporary post? 3. Whether the petitioner had the right to hold the post of State Press Liaison Officer? 4. Whether the termination of the petitioner's services with one month's notice was valid?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that there was no mala fides on the part of the respondents in terminating the petitioner's services based on the evidence presented. 2. The Court held that the post of State Press Liaison Officer was a temporary post based on the relevant documents and affidavits filed by the respondents. 3. The Court held that the petitioner had the right to hold the post of State Press Liaison Officer as his appointment as Deputy Director ripened into a permanent appointment on the expiry of the period of probation and he became entitled to be confirmed in that post. 4. The Court held that the termination of the petitioner's services with one month's notice was invalid as it was in contravention of the constitutional guarantee under Article 311 of the Constitution and amounted to imposition of a penalty of removal or dismissal within the meaning of those expressions as used in Rule 4 (vi) and (vii) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952.

Final Decision: The Court quashed the order terminating the petitioner's services.