SH. HUKAM CHAND KHUNDIA

CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ANR.

OCTOBER 9, 1995

[G.N. RAY AND G.T. NANAVATJ, J.J.]

Se1vice Law :

Tempora1y se1vice--P1Vbatio11--Employee's se1vices found unsatisfac- C t01y-Tennination simplicitor without e11q11i1y-Held 011 facts order was not

by way ofpunishme11t-Hence not violative of A1tic/e 311.

The appellant was appointed as a temporary clerk by District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. However, during probation period his ser- D vices were found not satisfactory by various judicial oflicers under whom he worked. Consequently, an order terminating his services was passed without conducting an enquiry. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged this order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi.

In appeal to this Court it was contended that the termination order E which was in fact by way of punishment, was violative of Article 311 of the

Constitution as it \l'as passed without conducting an enquiry.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

F HELD : No dist:rin1inatory treatinent has been meted out to the

petitioner. His sen1ices \\'ere found unsatisfactory and as he was holding a ten1porary post and was on probation, an order of termination simplicitor was passed without attaching any stigma against him. The termination order is not arbitrary and capricious. In the aforesaid facts it cannot be said that in reality an order of punishment was passed in the cloack or pretence of termination simplicitor without holding any departmental proceeding thereby violating Article 311 of the Constitution. [147-G-H, 148-A-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6503 of 1986. 146

H.C. KHUNDIA v. CHANDIGARH ADMN. 147

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.86 of the Central Ad- A ministrativc Tribunal al Chandigarh in Case No. 19 of 1986.

P.P. Rao and Rajesh for the Petitioner.

In-person (N.P) for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

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 as a temporary clerk by the District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide order dated March 17, 1982. He was continuing in temporary service on probation but 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 appellant was D 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 E 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 any departmental proceeding and giving the petitioner 'a chance of showing cause, the order of ex-pa1te termination of service on the ground of n1isconduct is illegal and void. Even in the case of temporary service, the provisions of Article 311 of. the constitution of India is applicable. Jn support of such contention, reference has been made to the decision of this Court in Jamai/ Singh and 01'. Etc. v. 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 G said decision. It appears that the service of the petitioners was found unsatisfactory for the reasons indicated hereinbefore. Since the petitionc1 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 unsatisfactory, the termination H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A order cannot be held arbitrary and capricious. In the aforesaid facts, we do not think that in reality an order of punishment has been passed against the petitioner in the cloack 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

B dismissed.

T.N.A.

Appeal dismissed.