Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from termination of a temporary government servant in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The respondent, Smt. Kamia Devi, was appointed on an ad hoc basis on February 14, 1972. She was posted at different places but either remained on leave or absconded from duty, except when joining places nearer to her native place Lakhimpur Kheri. Consequently, the authorities terminated her service on September 23, 1980, in terms of the letter of appointment. The respondent approached the Tribunal seeking reinstatement with back wages. The Tribunal set aside the termination, holding it violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution because no enquiry was conducted. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order in Writ Petition No.1589(SS)/94 passed on April 5, 1994. The question before the Supreme Court was whether an enquiry under Article 311(2) read with statutory rules was necessary before terminating a temporary government servant. The Court noted that in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the U.P. Temporary Government Services Rules, 1975, specifically Rule 14(a), provides for termination of service of a temporary government servant with one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof. The Court held that when the Government exercised this statutory power, the need to conduct an enquiry under Article 311(2) was by necessary implication obviated. The High Court was therefore wrong in holding that an enquiry under Article 311(2) was required to terminate the services of even a temporary government servant. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, thereby upholding the termination. However, it directed that any salary paid to the respondent during continuance in service pursuant to interim directions would not be recovered from her. No order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Temporary Government Servant - Rule 14(a) of U.P. Temporary Government Services Rules, 1975 permits termination of temporary government servant with one month's notice or pay in lieu, obviating need for enquiry under Article 311(2) of Constitution - Respondent appointed ad hoc, remained absent from duty, and was terminated under letter of appointment; Tribunal and High Court erroneously required an enquiry under Article 311(2) - Held that when statutory power under Rule 14(a) is exercised, enquiry under Article 311(2) is obviated by necessary implication.
Issue of Consideration
Whether enquiry under Article 311(2) of the Constitution read with statutory rules is necessary before terminating services of a temporary government servant under Rule 14(a) of U.P. Temporary Government Services Rules, 1975.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court and Tribunal orders set aside; termination upheld; salary paid during interim direction not to be recovered; no costs.
Law Points
- Rule 14(a) of U.P. Temporary Government Services Rules
- 1975 permits termination of temporary government servant with one month's notice or pay in lieu
- exercise of statutory power obviates need for enquiry under Article 311(2) of Constitution
- High Court wrong in requiring enquiry for temporary government servant
