http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 6

PETITIONER:

NEPAL SINGH

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF U. P. ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/11/1984

BENCH:

PATHAK, R.S.

BENCH:

PATHAK, R.S.

MADON, D.P.

THAKKAR, M.P. (J)

CITATION:

1985 AIR 84 1985 SCR (2) 1

1985 SCC (1) 56 1984 SCALE (2)693

CITATOR INFO :

R 1986 SC1626 (30)

RF 1991 SC1490 (3)

RF 1992 SC 496 (26)

ACT:

Public Service-Termination of Service of a temporary

government servant on the allegation of misconduct and

corruption without following provisions of Article 311(2) of

the Constitution is void and violative of Articles 14 and 16

Competent Authorities cannot circumvent the mandate of

Article 311(2) and resort to the guise of ex-facie innocuous

termination order-U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules

1956, Rule 29 read with Constitution of India, Articles

14,16 and 311 (2). D

HEADNOTE:

On an allegation that the appellant, a temporary Sub-

inspector of Police, while posted at Pithoragarh had

contracted in November 1964 a second marriage, while his

first wife was alive, without obtaining the prior permission

of the Government and in violation of Rule 29 of the U. P.

Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1956 the Superintendent

of Police, Shahjahanpur initiated in 1968 disciplinary

proceedings under section 7 of the Police Act against him. 1

However, after the evidence was closed in January 1970, the

Superintendent noticed that his action was without

jurisdiction and pointed out the same lo the Deputy

Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Range, who ordered the

quashing of the disciplinary proceedings on March 12, 1970.

About this time the Inspector General of Police, Uttar

Pradesh issued a circular letter to the Superintendent of

Police throughout the State requiring them to submit a list

of Sub-Inspectors who fell in any of the following three

categories:

1. Whose reputation and integrity is very low and/or

2. Who are generally involved in scandals, like drinking,

immorality, etc. which blackens the face of the U. P.

Police and/or

3. Everywhere they are a big problem because they

encourage gambling, excise offences, brothels,

criminals, etc.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 6

The Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur drew up a

list of such Sub-Inspectors on February S, 1970 and directed

them to appear before the Deputy Inspector General of

Police, Bareilly Range on February 10, 1970 during his

2

inspection of the district. The list included the name of

the appellant with the note:

"A corrupt officer, who is not straight forward.

Married two wives against Government Servants Conduct

Rules. Does not do his duty sincerely. Wherever he goes

creates problem".

Thereupon, on April 27, 1970, the Deputy Inspector

General of Police, Bareilly Range, made an order purporting

to be under the rules published by Notification No. 230/

1953 dated January 30, 1953 that the appellant’s services

were not required any more and were terminated with one

month’s pay in lieu of notice.

The appellant thereupon filed a Writ Petition in the

High Court against the order terminating his services and on

November 17, 1972 a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad

High Court dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the

order of termination was passed bonafide, that it was an

order of termination simpliciter and that it did not

constitute the removal of the appellant from service. On

appeal filed by the appellant that vice was endorsed by a

Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment and order

dated March 13, 1973 and the appeal was dismissed holding

that the impugned order was ex-facie innocuous and could not

be said to cast any stigma or be regarded as imposing the