Civil Appeal No 621 of 1975 Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 13th March 1973 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No9 of 1973
RK Garg and M Qamaruddin for the Appellant
Prithvi Raj and Mrs Shobha Dikshit for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court WCIS delivered by PATHAK J This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the appellant s writ petition against an order terminating his services
The appellant Nepal Singh was employed in a temporary capacity as Sub Inspector of Police
He was serving at Shahjahanpur in 1968 when the Superintendent of Police Shahjahanpur initiated disciplinary proceedings under S7 of the Police Act against him on the charge that while posted at Pithoragarh he had in November 1964 contracted a second marriage while his first wife was alive and as this was done without obtaining the prior permission of the Government the appellant had violated Rule 29 of the UP Government Servants  Conduct Rules 1956
The appellant filed a reply and denied the charge
The oral testimony of about twelve witnesses for the prosecution and an almost equal number for the defence was recorded
But in January 1970 the Superintendent 4 of Police Shahjahanpur wrote to the Deputy Inspector General of Police Bareilly Range that as the act alleged against the appellant related to the district of Pithoragarh the disciplinary proceedings taken by him would be without jurisdiction unless there was an existing order transferring the proceedings from Pithoragarh to Shahjahanpur
Accordingly on March 121 970 the Deputy Inspector General of Police Bareilly Range ordered the quashing of the disciplinary proceedings
It appears that no further action was taken and the proceedings were dropped
About this time the Inspector General of Police Uttar Pradesh issued a circular letter to the Superintendents of Police throughout the State requiring them to submit a list of Sub Inspector who fell in any of the following three categories 1
Whose reputation and integrity is very low andor 2
Who are generally involved in scandals like drinking immorality etc
which blackens the face of the UP Police  andor 3
Everywhere they are a big problem because they encourage gambling excise offences brothels criminals etc
The Superintendent of Police Shahjahanpur drew up a list of such Sub Inspectors on February S 1970 and directed them to appear before the Deputy Inspector General of Police Bareilly Range on February 10 1970 during his inspection of the district
The list included the name of the appellant with the note A corrupt officer who is not straight forward
Married two wives against Government Servants Conduct Rules  Does not do his duty sincerely
Wherever he goes creates problem
 Thereupon on April 271970 the Deputy Inspector General of Police Bareilly Range made an order purporting to be under the rules published by Notification No 230II B 1953 dated January 30 1953 that the appellant s services were not required any more and were terminated with one month s pay in lieu of notice
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court against 5 the order terminating his services and on November 171972 a learned A Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the order of termination was passed bonafide that it was an order of termination simpliciter and that it did not constitute the removal of the appellant from service
That view was endorsed on appeal filed by the appellant by a Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment and order dated March 131973
The learned judges have taken the view that the case in respect of the appellant was covered by the first and third of the three categories enumerated earlier that is to say his integrity was low and he was a problem officer  who encouraged gambling excise offences brothels criminals etc
 The allegation that he had married two wives against the Government Servants Conduct Rules 1956 the learned Judges said did not bring him within any of the three categories as in their view the second marriage without prior permission of the Government gave rise merely to a tinkle charge
In view of the opinion that the impugned order was ex facie innocuous and could not be said to cast any stigma or be regarded as imposing the punishment of dismissal or removal the learned Judges dismissed the appeal
It seems to us that the High Court has failed to consider the true content of the case set up by the appellant
The entire thrust of the appellant s case is that in terminating the appellant s Services the competent authority treated him unfairly and arbitrarily
It is well settled that in dealing with a Government servant the state must conform to the constitutional requirements of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
An arbitrary exercise of power by the State violates those constitutional guarantees for a fundamental implication in the guarantee of equality and of protection against discrimination is that fair and just treatment will be accorded to all whether individually or jointly as a class
When a Government servant satisfies the Court prima facie that an order terminating his services violates articles 14 and 16 the competent authority must discharge the burden of showing that the power to terminate the services was exercised honestly and in good faith on valid considerations fairly and without discrimination
The High Court has observed that within the framework of the three categories defined in the Inspector General s circular the allegation of a second marriage by the appellant was of no significance and that the principal intent in terminating the appellant section 6 services was to rid the State of an unsuitable officer
The Superintendent of Police has noted that the appellant created problems wherever he went but it is not disclosed in the affidavits what were those problems
It is not shown that the problems were of the nature specifically indicated by the circular issued by the Inspector General of Police We are unable to conclude from the material before us that the Superintendent of Police applied his mind to the requirements of the case
The Superintendent of Police has also commented that the appellant was a corrupt officer who was not straightforward whatever that might mean
On that we have this to say
Where the a services of a Government servant on temporary appointment are terminated on the ground that his reputation for corruption makes him unsuitable for retention in the service the reputation for corrupt behavior must be based on something more than a mere allegation
The other grounds mentioned in the report of the Superintendent of Police which impressed the High Court appear to us to be equally vague and unspecific
The State and for that matter any statutory employer must take great care when proceeding to terminate a career on the ground of unsuitability to ensure that its order is founded in definable material objectively assessed and relevant to the ground on which the termination is effected
Proceeding from there we may advert to a further aspect of the case
It would seem that the dominating factor which influenced the mind of the Deputy Inspector General of Police was the allegation that the appellant had married a second wife against the Government Servants  Conduct Rules it is clear that a full fledged enquiry was instituted into the matter evidence was recorded but before any findings could be rendered the enquiry was dropped for want of jurisdiction
No attempt was made thereafter to institute proper enquiry by the appropriate authority
In the circumstances it was not open to the Superintendent of Police to mention in his report as a statement of fact that the appellant had married a second time against the Government Servants  Conduct Rules
With the dropping of the enquiry the allegation remained unverified
We may observe that where allegations of misconduct are levelled against a Government servant and it is a case where the provisions of article 3112 of the Constitution should be applied it is not open to the competent authority to take the view that holding the enquiry contemplated by that clause would be a bother or a nuisance and 7 that therefore it is entitled to avoid the mandate of that provision and resort to the guise of an ex facie innocuous termination order
A The Court will view with great disfavor any attempt to circumvent the constitutional provision of Art311 2in a case where that provision comes into play
For all the aforesaid reasons we are unable to uphold the judgment and order of the High Court and in the result the appeal must he allowed
The appeal is allowed and the order dated April 27 1970 of the Deputy Inspector General of Police UP Bareilly Circle is quashed
The appellant is entitled to be treated as continuing in service without interruption
It will be open to the authorities to take fresh proceedings against the appellant in accordance with law
It will also be open to them to determine whether the appellant was gainfully employed for the purpose of considering the extent of relief if any to which he may be entitled pursuant to our present order quashing the impugned order
In the circumstances there is no order as to costs
section R Appeal allowed


Summary:
On an allegation that the appellant a temporary Sub inspector of Police while posted at Pithoragarh had contracted in November 1964 a second marriage while his first wife was alive without obtaining the prior permission of the Government and in violation of Rule 29 of the U P Government Servants  Conduct Rules 1956 the Superintendent of Police Shahjahanpur initiated in 1968 disciplinary proceedings under section 7 of the Police Act against him
1 However after the evidence was closed in January 1970 the Superintendent noticed that his action was without jurisdiction and pointed out the same lo the Deputy Inspector General of Police Bareilly Range who ordered the quashing of the disciplinary proceedings on March 12 1970
About this time the Inspector General of Police Uttar Pradesh issued a circular letter to the Superintendent of Police throughout the State requiring them to submit a list of Sub Inspectors who fell in any of the following three categories 1
Whose reputation and integrity is very low andor 2
Who are generally involved in scandals like drinking immorality etc
which blackens the face of the U P Police andor 3
Everywhere they are a big problem because they encourage gambling excise offences brothels criminals etc
The Superintendent of Police Shahjahanpur drew up a list of such Sub Inspectors on February S 1970 and directed them to appear before the Deputy Inspector General of Police Bareilly Range on February 10 1970 during his 2 inspection of the district
The list included the name of the appellant with the note A corrupt officer who is not straight forward
Married two wives against Government Servants Conduct Rules
Does not do his duty sincerely
Wherever he goes creates problem
Thereupon on April 27 1970 the Deputy Inspector General of Police Bareilly Range made an order purporting to be under the rules published by Notification No 230 1953 dated January 30 1953 that the appellant s services were not required any more and were terminated with one month s pay in lieu of notice
The appellant thereupon filed a Writ Petition in the High Court against the order terminating his services and on November 17 1972 a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the order of termination was passed bonafide that it was an order of termination simpliciter and that it did not constitute the removal of the appellant from service
On appeal filed by the appellant that vice was endorsed by a Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment and order dated March 13 1973 and the appeal was dismissed holding that the impugned order was ex facie innocuous and could not be said to cast any stigma or be regarded as imposing the punishment of dismissal or removal
Hence the appeal by Special Leave of the Court
Allowing the appeal the Court  HELD 1
It is well settled that in dealing with a government servant the State must conform to the constitutional requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
An arbitrary exercise of power by the State violates these constitutional guarantees for a fundamental implication in the guarantee of equality and of protection against discrimination is that fair and just treatment will be accorded to all whether individually or jointly as a class
When a government servant satisfies the Court prima facie that an order terminating his services violates Articles 14 and 16 the competent authority must discharge the burden of showing that the power to terminate the services was exercised honestly and in good faith on valid considerations fairly and without discrimination
S E G 2
Where the services of a government servant on temporary appointment arc terminated on the ground that his reputation for corruption makes him unsuitable for retention in the service the reputation for corrupt behavior must be based on something more than a mere allegation
The State and for that matter any statutory employer must take great care when proceeding to terminate a career on the ground of unsuitability to ensure that its order is found in definable material objectively assessed and relevant to the ground on which the termination is effected
6 C E In the instant case the Superintendent of Police did not apply his mind to the requirements of the case
The Superintendent of Police has noted that the 3 appellant created problems wherever he went but it is not disclosed in the affidavits what those problems were and that the problems were of the nature specifically indicated by the circular issued by the Inspector General of Police
The other grounds mentioned in the report of the Superintendent of Police are equally vague and unspecific
 6A B 3
Where allegations of misconduct are leveled against a Government Servant and it is  case where the provisions of Article 311 2 of the Constitution should be appliedl it is not open to the competent authority to take the view that holding the enquiry contemplated by the clause would be a bother or a nuisance and that therefore it is entitled to avoid the mandate of that provision and resort to the guise of an ex facie innocuous termination order
The Court will view with great disfavour any attempt to circumvent the constitutional provision of Article 311 2 in a case where that provision comes into play
6 G H 7A B