SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.K. Sema and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
Sainik School Society and Ors. - Petitioner
Versus
R.K. Angousana Singh and Anr. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2423 of 2007 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 749 of 2000).
Decided On : 8-5-2007
Termination - Employment Law - The court held that the payment of one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice constitutes sufficient notice of termination, and therefore, the absence of one month's notice before issuing the termination order does not affect its validity.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was terminated from the post of Nursing Assistant in Sainik School, Imphal without one month's notice, but with the entitlement to one month's salary in lieu of notice.
Finding of the Court:
The learned single Judge found the absence of one month's notice not to affect the validity of the termination order, while the Division Bench erroneously held that giving one month's notice is mandatory.
Issues: The main issue was whether the absence of one month's notice before issuing the termination order affected its validity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice constitutes sufficient notice of termination, and therefore, the absence of one month's notice does not affect the validity of the termination order.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench's decision, and restored the order of the learned single Judge.
ORDER :
Leave granted.
2. Heard the parties.
3. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 18.11.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gauhati, Imphal Bench in Writ Appeal No. 83/2004 (R. K. Angousana Singh v. Sainik School Society, 2006(7) S.L.R. 199 : 2006(40) AIC 330) setting aside the order of the learned single Judge. This appeal is preferred by the Sainik School Society the appointing authority.
4. Briefly stated the facts are as follows. Respondent was appointed to the post of Nursing Assistant in Sainik School, Imphal on probation for a period of one year. The period of probation was extendable to two years. The period of probation was extended by one year upto 07.11.2004 for further observations by an order dated 24.10.2003. Since the Respondent had not been accounting for various amounts taken by him, a notice dated 26.10.2004 was issued to him. Thereafter, by an order dated 04.11.2004, he was terminated from service. The order of termination dated 04.11.2004 reads as under:
"CONFIDENTIAL
Ref: SSI/110/Adm
04 Nov. 2004
Shri R.K. Angousana Singh
Nursing Assistant
Sainik School, Imphal
TERMINATION OF SERVICE
1. Reference this office school letter of even No. dated 30 Oct., 2002.
2. Your services would no longer be required with immediate effect. You are entitled to draw an amount of one month salary in lieu of the notice period.
3. You are, therefore, required to hand over the stores held by you to the Board detailed for this purpose. You are advised to carry out clearance and hand over the quarters to the Quartermaster latest by 05 Nov., 2004 (AN).
Sd/-
(MS Bhandari)
Wing Commander, Principal.
5. The Principal of the school terminated the services of the Respondent in exercise of the powers vested in him under Rule 7.08 of Chapter-VII (Terms and Conditions of Service) of the Sainik School Society's Rules and Regulations. Rule 7.08 reads as under:
6. Aggrieved by the order of termination, he preferred a writ petition before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge, after hearing counsel on both sides at length, comes to the conclusion, in our view rightly, that the absence of one month's notice to the Petitioner before issuing the termination order will not effect the validity of the order because under the order of termination itself the Petitioner is entitled to get one month's salary in lieu of the said one month's notice.
7. The learned Division Bench upset the well-reasoned findings recorded by learned single Judge by citing several judgments of this Court which are irrelevant for the purpose of decision of the case at hand. In our view, the learned Division Bench erroneously held that when the statute prescribe one month's notice then giving one month's notice is mandatory.
8. By now, it is well-settled in service jurisprudence that one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice is sufficient compliance of one month's notice. In other words, if the incumbent is paid one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice that would constitute sufficient notice of one month. On this short question, the reasoning recorded by the Division Bench is not tenable in law. It is, accordingly, set aside. The order of the learned single Judge is restored.
9. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No costs.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.