BISHAN LAL GUPTA versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1978] 2 S.C.R. 513 · Decided: 12-01-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-t 
t 
513 
BISHAN LAL GUPTA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF·HARYANA AND ORS. 
January 12, 1978 
[M. H. BEG, c. J., P. N. BHAGWATI AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.] 
B 
(,'onstitution of India, Articles 136 and 311 Article 136 : Interference with, 
when warranted-Article 311 : Inquiry for determining, suitability of probationer 
to continue in service, 
whether 
amounts to "punishment"-Removal 
from 
service, probationer vis a vis confirmed Government servant. 
Complaints \Vere received against the 
petitioner, 
a 
probationer 
in the 
Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Br8'nch), and the High Court held an inquiry 
C 
to determine his suitability to continue in service. 
Show cause notices were 
issued and ihe petitioner was given reasonable opportunity to be heard, but it 
was found that his explanations were 
belied by documentary 
evidence on 
record. 
On the recommendation of the High Court, 
the 
State Government 
terminated his services by a.n innocuously worded order, after considering his 
further explanations. Three questions arose before this Court, firstly, whether 
the inquiry held by the High Court amounted to "punishment" within tfte 
meaning of Article 311, secondly whether probationers and confirmed Govern-
ment servants stand at par in such cases and thirdly, whether on mere techni-
D 
cal pleas, this Court should interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution. 
Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court, 
HEID : l. This Court would not interere under Article 136 of the Consti· 
tution on a merely technical plea. It is only if patent facts disclose a serious 
enough infringernent of law as well as indubitably damaging and undeserved 
consequences upon a petitioner that the court's conscience could be so moved 
as to induce it to interfere. 
[519 D-E] 
E 
2. If the enquiry conducted and notices given are intended only to determine 
whether a probationer, who bas no fixed or fully formed right to continue in 
service (treated in the eye of law as a case of "no right" to continue in service), 
should be continued and more serious action is not contemplated, it means that 
no stigma is intended te be cast, even if the reputation of the probationer is to 
some degree affected, if those facts can not reasonbly be disputed by him. 
In the eye of law, it is not a case of punishment, but of termination of service 
F 
simpliciter, unless the individual concerned bas suffered a substantial loss of 
reputation which may affect his future prospects. 
[519 A-C] 
Shamsher Singh v. State of Puniab, 1975(1) SCR 814; State of Puniab & 
Anr. v. Sukh Rai Bahadur 1968 II SLR 70l=AIR 1968 SC 1089; Ram Goval 
Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1969 SLR 429; S. P. Vasudeva v. State 
of Haryana and Ors .. A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2292; Champaklal v. Union of India 
A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1854; State of Bihar and Ors. v. 
Shiva Bhukshuk Mishra, 
A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1011; Purshottamlal Dhingra v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1958 G 
S.C. 38; The State of Orissa & Anr. v. Ram Narayan Das, A.I.R. 
1961 S.C. 
177; Ranendra Chandra Banerjee v. The Union of India & Anr., A.I.R. 1963 
S.C. 1552; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Akbar Ali Khan A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1842 
referred to. 
~- There should be some difference, as to the nature of, or the depth of the 
inquiry to be held, as between a probationer whose service$ c~ be termin.ated 
by a notice and a confirmed Government servant who has a nght to continue 
in service until he reaches a certain age. A confirmed Government servant's H 
dismissal or removal is a more serious matter. This difference must necess:irily 
be reflected in the nature of inquiries for the two different purposes. Neither 
can be "punished". without a formal charae and ina_uiry. but a less formal 
514 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1978] 2 S.C.B. 
A inquiry may be sufficient to determine whether a probationer should be 
con· 
tinned in service. 
He has no "right'' to continue to serve 
without justifying 
the continuance. [519 G-H, 520 A] 
C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Petition for Special leave to 
Appeal (Civil) No. 3818 of 1976. 
From the Judgment and Order dated the 12th August. 
1976 of 
B 
the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular First Appeal No. 
266/70. 
G. L. Sa11ghi and E. C. Agrawala for the Appellant/Petitioner 
R. N. Sachthey for Respondents 1 and 3. 
Hardev Singh and R. S. Sodhi for Respondent No. 2. 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BEG, C.J .-The Special Leave Petition before us arises out of a 
suit in which a point arose which had
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.