Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SHRI HUKAM CHAND KHUNDIA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT09/10/1995
BENCH:
RAY, G.N. (J)
BENCH:
RAY, G.N. (J)
NANAVATI G.T. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (6) 534 1995 SCALE (6)125
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
The order of termination of the service of the
petitioner was challenged by filing an application under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 before
the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. Such
application has been dismissed by the impugned order. The
applicant was appointed Judge, Chandigarh, vide order dated
March 17, 1982. He was continuing in temporary service on
probation put it appears that his service was not found
satisfactory and as a matter of fact on a number of
occasions he was found by the successive judicial officers
under whom the applicant was working that his integrity was
questionable. Considering his service records, the temporary
service of the applicant has been terminated.
Mr. P.P. Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner has submitted that if termination has in fact
been effected by way of punishment, the real purpose of the
order and not the outer form of it, is required to be looked
into by piercing the veil, He has submitted that if on the
score of misconduct, the service, is terminated without
holding by departmental proceeding and giving the petitioner
a chance of showing cause, the order of parte termination
of service on the ground of misconduct is illegal and void.
Even in the case of temporary service, the provisions of
Article 311 of the Constitution of India is applicable. In
support of such contention, reference has been made to the
decision of this Court in Jarnail Singh and Ors. etc. versus
State of Punjab (1986 (2) SCR 1022). It, however, appears to
us that no discriminatory treatment has been meted out to
the petitioner as was done to the employee concerned in the
said decision. It appears that the service of the petitioner
was found unsatisfactory for the reasons indicated
hereinbefore. Since the petitioner was holding a temporary
service and was on probation, an order of termination
simplicitor has been passed without attaching any stigma
against him. As the service records were found
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
unsatisfactory, the termination order cannot be held
arbitrary and dapricious. In the aforesaid facts, we do not
thing that in reality an order of punishment has been passed
against the petitioner in the clocks or pretence of
termination simplicitor without holding any departmental
proceeding thereby violating. Article 311 of the
Constitution. We therefore. find no merit in this petition
and the same is dismissed.