1. Temporary government servant terminated under Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, following allegations of misappropriation of funds. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 559
1997(3) Supreme 679
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Shri Bihari Lal Sidhana -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2668 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 316 of 1997)
Decided on 25-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Sushma Manchanda and D.S. Mehra, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Gurmeet Singh, Advocate.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Termination order indicating the fact the concerned official was order suspension did not constitute any stigma.
Termination order indicating the fact the concerned official was order suspension did not constitute any stigma.
Subject
Employment Law - Termination of Employment
Act Referred
CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES TEMPORARY SERVICES RULES: R.5(1)
Headnote
SERVICE LAW-Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965-Rule 5(1)-Respondent, a temporary Cash Clerk, prosecuted for misappropriation of funds-Order of removal from service-He was acquitted by criminal court-He was not entitled to be reinstated into service automatically-Termination order indicating fact that respondent was under suspension did not constitute any stigma-Order of termination was in exercise of power under the Rule-Division Bench of High Court erred in directing payment of compensation. (Paras 5 and 6)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether termination of a temporary employee mentioning their suspension status constitutes termination with stigma, thereby requiring a prior enquiry. (Para 4 )
3. Mentioning suspension status is descriptive and not stigmatizing; acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically entitle a government servant to reinstatement. (Para 5 )
4. Competent authorities may invoke Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules to terminate temporary employees without enquiry, regardless of criminal acquittal. (Para 5 )
5. Appeal allowed; judgment of the Division Bench set aside and the single Judge's order confirmed. (Para 7 )
6. Does acquittal in a criminal case automatically entitle a government servant to reinstatement?
No, acquittal does not automatically grant the right to reinstatement. The competent authority retains the power to decide whether to reinstate the employee or initiate disciplinary action under applicable service rules. (Para 5 )
7. Does mentioning that an employee was under suspension in a termination order constitute the attachment of stigma?
No, mentioning that an employee was under suspension at the time the order was passed is merely a descriptive way of stating their status and does not constitute stigma. (Para 5 )
8. Can a temporary government servant be terminated without an enquiry under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965?
Yes, the competent authority has the power under Rule 5(1) to terminate the services of a temporary government servant instead of conducting an enquiry. (Para 5 )
ORDER
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench, made on September 12, 1996 in L.P.A. No. 215/1979 by the Delhi High Court. While the respondent was working as a Cash Clerk in Delhi Milk Scheme, temporary mis-appropriation of the funds on more than one occasion was discovered. When misappropriation of Rs. 17,744.91 on April 2, 1972 was reported, a prosecution was laid against the respondent. While the prosecution was pending, orders were passed by the competent authority on April 24, 1972 as under:
"In pursuance of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, I hereby terminate forthwith the services of Shri B.L. Sidhana, Cash Clerk (under suspension), Delhi Milk Scheme and direct that he shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of pay and allowances for a period of one month (in lieu of the period of notice) was drawing them immediately before the date on which he was drawing them immediately before the date on which he was placed under suspension."
3. The respondent was acquitted of the charge in criminal case and therefore, he filed a writ petition. In his order, the learned single Judge held thus :
"The petition of a Cash Clerk is one of confidence and responsibility. Even if the incidents averred against the petitioner were not proved, they were such, as to lead a prudent employer to terminate the services of the employee on the ground of his, not being desirable. The order of termination was passed, as noticed above, one year after the criminal case had started and two years after the enquiry. The enquiry appears not to have been completed, so, no definite opinion had been arrived as with regard to the guilt of the petitioner. No evil consequences were visited on the petition as a result of the order of termination. Nor has any stigma been attached. No penalties were inflicted on the petitioner despite the enquiries, and the start of the criminal case. In the circumstances the order of termination simpliciter is valid. Since the order is innocuous, there is not need to peer behind it, unless malafides had been established."
4. On appeal, the Division Bench reversed it, holding that the order of removal does indicate that it was termination of the services of the respondent with stigma attached by mentioning (under suspension). Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 was exercise with stigma attached in the order. The order does indicate that he was under suspension. It postulates that it was by way of a misconduct and thereby without conducting the enquiry, the termination of the service of the respondent was illegal. Consequently, instead of reinstating him into service the Court directed the appellant-employer to pay him
compensation in a sum of Rs. 2.50 lakhs. Aggrieved by that order, this appeal has been filed.
5. It is true that the respondent was acquitted by the criminal court but acquittal does not automatically gives him the right to be reinstated into the service. It would still be open to the competent authority to take decision whether the delinquent Government servant can be taken into service or disciplinary action should be taken under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules or under the Temporary Service Rules. Admittedly, the respondent had been working as a temporary Government servant before he was kept under suspension. The termination order indicated the factum that he, by then, was under suspension. It is only a way of describing him as being under suspension when the order came to be passed but that does not constitute any stigma. Mere acquittal of Government employee does not automatically entitle the Government servant to reinstatement. As stated earlier, it would be open to the appropriate competent authority to take a decision whether the enquiry into the conduct is required to be do
