P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN,, J.

( 1 ) THESE two Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the oral judgment passed by the learned single Judge of our High Court in Special Civil Applications Nos. 1329 and 1330 of 1984. The short facts of the cases are that these two appellants were appointed as temporary constables in November 1983 and they were on probation. They underwent some departmental training and had to appear at the departmental examinations. They appeared at the two of the examinations and on 20/02/1984 it is alleged that they were found indulging in unfair practice at the examination by copying from a chit which was recovered from them during the examination in the presence of another candidate and the Drill Instructor who was assisting the Supervisors. They were not allowed to further appear in the examinations and their services came to be terminated by the impugned order dated 2-3-1984. The order states that as their services are not required by the Department and that as the appointment is solely on temporary basis the appellants are relieved from the service after office hours on 2-3-1984 by paying one weeks notice pay as per Rule 33 of the B. C. S. R. Parts. These orders are challenged on two grounds: (1) that the termination is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because persons similarly situated and junior to the appellants were continued in service and the appellants were arbitrarily singled out for discriminatory and hostile treatment and (2) that the impugned orders of termination were penal because the foundation for that action was the alleged misconduct of copying and unfair practice at the departmental examination and the appellants had no opportunity to meet with that allegation and therefore the order is violative of the principles of natural justice.

( 2 ) THE learned single Judge of our High Court after considering the facts of the case and observing that the order of termination is not based upon the unfair practice adopted by the appellants herein but termination simpliciter since they were probationers dismissed the Special Civil Applications. According to the learned Judge the unfair practices alleged against the appellants are not the foundation for the termination order but that was the motive behind such an order passed. The learned single Judge in deciding this aspect of the case relied upon the decision in Govt. Branch Press v. D. B. Bellappa reported in AIR 1979 SC 419 and the decision in State of U. P. v. Bhoop Singh reported in AIR 1979 SC 684. In AIR 1979 SC 429 the Supreme Court observed:"if the services of a temporary Government servant are terminated in accordance with the conditions of his service on the ground of unsatisfactory conduct or his unsuitability for the job and/or for his work being unsatisfactory or for a like reason which marks him off a class apart from other temporary servants who have been retained in service there is no question of the applicability of Art. 16. Conversely if the services of a temporary Government servant are terminated arbitrarily and not on the ground of his unsuitability unsatisfactory conduct or the like which would put him in a class apart from his juniors in the same service a question of unfair discrimination may arise notwithstanding the fact that in terminating his service the appointing authority was purporting to act in accordance with the terms of the employment". The Supreme Court in that decision finally held as follows:"the termination of service was made arbitrarily and not on ground of unsuitability or other reason. It was further observed that it was perhaps open to the Government to say in view of the complaint alluded to in the show-cause notice against the integrity and fidelity of the employee that the former had lost confidence in the latter and considered him unsuitable to be continued in the post which was one of trust and confidence. But when the Government instead of taking any such plea has with obdura

Click Here to Read the rest of this document