CHANDRA PARKASH SHAHI versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 529 · Decided: 25-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 22 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
CHANDRA PARKASH SHAHI 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
APRIL 25, 2000 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
U.P. Police Regulations-Para 541-Tennination-Service tenninated 
for misconduct after completion of pmbation by giving simple notice and 
holding a preliminary enquiry-Tribunal set asick tennination holding that 
order was punitive-High Court upheld order of tennination-On appeal Held, 
there was total non-compliance of procedure prescribed-Notice issued did not 
intimate grounds of tennination nor any explanation obtained-Order of tenni-
nation set aside-U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Tennination of Serv-
ice Rule, 1975)-Rule 3. 
Probation-Acquisition of permanent status after successful completion 
of probation-Pe1manent status can be acquired only after specific order of 
confirmation and not merely by completion of probation. 
Pmbation-Termination of Service-"Motive and foundation "-Order 
not punitive if employee found unsuitable for post after an enquiry-Order 
punitive if general suitability of employee was not assessed but truth of allega-
tions regarding misconduct were investigated before passing the termination 
order-Order founded on misconduct will not be a mere matter of "motive" and 
cannot be upheld in law. 
Constitution of India-Article 311(2)-Temporary Government Servants 
on probation entitled to protection-Courts can lift veil of an innocuously 
worded order and find out whether it is as innocent as worded. 
Appellant was recruited as Constable and was placed on probation 
for two years, which he completed without any blemish. His services were 
terminated by a n~tice issued under Rule 3 of the U.P. Temporary Govern-
ment Servants (Termination of Service) Rule, 1975, on the basis of a 
preliminary enquiry, which was instituted to investigate into a quarrel 
involving him and two other constables. The order of termination was set 
aside by the Tribunal, which held it to be punitive in character though the 
529 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
530 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
order was innocuously worded. Respondents filed a writ petition against 
the Tribunal's order. The High Court held that the termination order was 
valid. Hence this appeal by the employee. 
Appellant contended that his services could not have been termi-
nated, except by way of disciplinary action in accordance with the require-
B 
ments of Article 311(2) of the Constitution as he had got the status of a 
permanent employee; and that although apparently the order of termina-
tion was innocuous, it was punitive in nature. 
The respondents contended that the appellant was a temporary em-
ployee and his services could be terminated anytime by giving him one 
C 
month's notice. 
D 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. A perusal of Para 541 of the U.P. Police Regulations indi-
cates that the period of probation is two years. The Regulation is silent as to 
the maximum period beyond which the period of probation cannot be ex-
tended. In the absence of this prohibition, even if the appellant completed 
two years of probationary period successfully and without any blemish, 
his period of probation shall be treated to have been extended as 'perma-
nent' status can be acquired only by means of a specific order ·of 
confirmation. [536-F-G] 
State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, (1991] 1 SCR 29; State of 
Punjab v. Dharam Singh, (1968] 3SCR1; Pratap Singh v. U. T. of Chandigarh, 
(1980] 1SCR487 and Municipal Corporation, Raipur v. Ashok Kumar Misra, 
(1991] 2 SCR 320, relied on. 
F 
2. Temporary Government servants or probationers are also entitled 
to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution as the permanent 
employees despite the fact that temporary government servants have no 
right to hold the post and their services are liable to be terminated at any 
time by giving them a month's notice without assigning any reason eitherin 
G 
terms of the contract of service or under the relevant statutory rules 
regulating the terms and conditions of such service. Courts can lift the veil 
of an innocuously worded order to look at the face of the order and to find 
..it 
out whether it is as innocent as worded. [537-A-C] 
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, (1958] SCR 828; State of 
H 
Bihar v. Gopi Kishore Prasad, AIR (1960) SC 689; State of Orissa v. Ram 
C.P. SHAIIl v. STATE [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 
531 
Narayan Das, [1961] 1 SCR 606; Ranendra Chandra Banerjee v. Union of 
A 
India, [

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.