Case: Ram Gopal Chaturvedi Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh

1. The appellant was a temporary Civil Judge in Madhya Pradesh. On March 14, 1961 an order was issued in the name of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh State that the appellant "is appointed temporarily, until further orders, as Civil Judge". Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960Subject to any provision contained in the order of appointment or in any agreement between the government and the temporary government servant, the service of a temporary government servant who is not in quasi-permanent service shall be liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either by the government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant:Provided that the services of any such government servant may be terminated forthwith by payment to him of a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice, or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month or any agreed longer period;Provided further that the payment of allowance shall be subject to the conditions under which such allowances are admissible.(b) The periods of such notice shall be one month unless otherwise agreed between the Government and the Government servant".On March 25, 1964 an order was issued by and in the name of the Government terminating the appellants services. The orderservice of Shri Ram Gopal Chaturvedi temporary Civil Judge, Waidhan, are terminated with effect from the 1st June 1960,appellant filed a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court for quashing the order dated March 25, 1964. The High Court summarily dismissed the petition. It held that the impugned order was not by way of punishment and that the appellants services were liable to be terminated under the aforesaid rule 12 on one months notice. The appellant has filed the present appeal after obtaining special leave.

Reasoning:
It was not raised in the High Court, and we indicated in the course of arguments that the appellant could not be allowed to raise it in this Court for the firstpoint that the High Court had recommended the appellants confirmation was not raised in the High Court and cannot be allowed to be raised in this Court for the first time. The apellants services were subject to the relevant rules and could be terminated on one months notice under R.12. It is immaterial that the advertisement did not specifically mention that his services could be sois no merit in this contention. The case of State of U.P. v. M. L. Srivastava, 1958 SCR 533   = (AIR 1957 SC 912  ) decided that the provisions of Article 320 (3) (c) were not mandatory and did not confer any rights on the public servant and that the absence of consultation with the State Public Service Commission did not afford him a cause ofappears that there were complaints that the appellant was associating with a young girl named Miss Laxmi Surve against the wishes of her father and other members of her family. The Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh made inquiries into the matter and on February 19, 1954 he admonished the appellant for this disreputablecharge-sheet was served on the appellant nor was any departmental inquiry held against him. On March 10, 1964 the Madhya Pradesh High Court passed a resolution that the State Government should terminate the appellants services. Having regard to this resolution the State Government passed the impugned order dated March 25, 1964. On the face of it, the order did not cast stigma on the appellants character or integrity nor did it visit him with any evil consequences. It was not passed by way of punishment and the provisions of Article 311 were not attracted.9. It was immaterial that the order was preceded by an informal inquiry into the appellants conduct with a view to ascertain whether he should be retained in service. As was pointed out in the State of Punjab v. Sukh Raj Bahadur, AIR 1968 SC 1089   at p.the present case, the impugned order did not involve any element of punishment nor did it deprive the appellant of any vested right to anyState Government properly followed those recommendations.The High Court is vested with the control over the subordinate judiciary, see State of West Bengal v. N. N. Bagchi, (1966) 1 SCR 771   = (AIR 1966 SC 447  ). If the High Court found that the appellant was not a fit person to be retained in service, it could properly ask the government to terminate his services.Following the advice tendered by the High Court, the government rightly terminated his services under Rulecontention raises mixed questions of law andIt was not raised in the High Court, and we indicated in the course of arguments that the appellant could not be allowed to raise it in this Court for the firstis no merit in this contention. Rule 12 applies to all temporary government servants who are not inservice. All such government servants are treated alike. The argument that Rule 12 confers an arbitrary and unguided discretion is devoid of any merit. The services of a temporary government servant may be terminated on one months notice whenever the government thinks it necessary or expedient to do so for administrative reasons. It is impossible to defineall the circumstances in which the discretion can be exercised. The discretion was necessarily left to the government.