Back
A.P.SEN, R.S.SARKARIA, V.D.TULZAPURKAR
Manager, Government Branch Press – Appellant
Versus
D. B. Belliappa – Respondent
Key Points: - The Court holds that Articles 14 and 16(1) can apply to temporary government employees if they are arbitrarily discriminated against in termination, and discretion to terminate must be exercised with reason and fair play (!) (!) (!) . - If termination is based on unsuitability or conduct and is not arbitrary, there is no discrimination under Articles 14 and 16(1); however, when termination is arbitrary and no reasons are given, it may amount to unfair discrimination (!) (!) (!) . - In cases of hostile discrimination alleging improper motives, the authority must disclose the reasons or motive for the termination to dispel the charge; withholding information undermines due process (!) (!) . - The decision in Champak Lals case is cited to distinguish permissible termination based on conduct from discriminatory retrenchment in other contexts (!) . - The appellant’s termination of Belliappa was held to be arbitrary and discriminatory since no intelligible differential or reason was provided, while juniors were retained (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Judgment
SARKARIA, J.:- The respondent, Belliappa, was appointed temporary Junior Compositor in the Grade of Rs. 65-1-72-2-90 in the Government Branch Press, Mercara. The post was non-gazetted Class IV as defined in Cl. (iv) of Sub-rule (3) of R. 5 of the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The employment was temporary and was to continue until further orders.
2. The Branch Manager, Mercara, Respondent 1 (herein), served a notice on the respondent on Dec. 29, 1966, statement that the respondent had taken outside the Press some copies of the ballot papers relating to the Directors election of Coorg Cardamom Co-operative Societies, Mercara. The respondent was required to show cause before 2.00 P. M. of Dec. 30, 1966, why disciplinary action be not taken against him as per Rules. It was further stated in the notice that failure to comply with the notice will result in the respondents suspension and further disciplinary action against him.
3. Thereafter on Jan. 3, 1967, an order was served on the respondent, terminating his services. This order (hereinafter called the impugned order) runs as under :
"Office of the Manager, Government Branch Press, Mercar
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
