Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF U.P.& ORS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SMT. KAMIA DEVI & ANR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/05/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
FAIZAN UDDIN (J)
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (4) 548 JT 1996 (5) 595
1996 SCALE (5)10
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Though the respondent was appointed on February 14,
1972 on ad hoc basis, she was posted at different placed
during which period she remained either on leave or
absconded from duty, except joining the places nearer to her
native place Lakhimpur Kheri. Consequently, authorities had
taken action on September 23, 1980 to terminate her service
in terms of letter of appointment. The respondent had
approached the Tribunal for reinstatement with back wages.
The Tribunal has set aside the order of termination holding
that the termination is violative of Article 311 (2) of the
Constitution since no enquiry was conducted against the
respondent. The same came to be upheld by the High Court in
the impugned order in Writ Petition No.1589(SS)/94 passed on
April 5, 1994.
The question, therefore, is: whether it is necessary
for the Government to conduct an enquiry as contemplated
under Article 311(2) read with the statutory rules? In the
State of U.P., there are statutory rules, viz., U.P.
Temporary Government Services Rules, 1975. Rule 14(a) of the
said Rules provides for termination of the service of
temporary Government servant either with one month’s notice
or pay in lieu thereof.
Under these circumstances, when the Government
exercised the statutory power, the need to conduct enquiry
as contemplated under Article 311(2) by necessary
implication got obviated. The High Court, therefore, was
wrong in holding that the enquiry under Article 311(2) needs
to be conducted to terminate the services of even the
temporary Government servant.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. However, any salary
paid to the respondent during the continuance in services
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
pursuant to the interim direction would not be recovered
from her. There will be no order as to costs.