COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES,LUCKNOW, U.P. AND ANOTHER versus PRAKASH CHANDRA SAXENA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 930 · Decided: 05-05-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES.LUCKNOW, 
U.P. AND ANOTHER 
,.J 
v. 
PRAKASH CHANDRA SAXENA AND ANOTHER 
B 
MAY 5, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
t 
c 
U.P. Temporary Government Servants' Protection Rules, 1975 - Tern-
porary Govt. Servant-Tenninatiun of-Simpliciter-Held, does not amount 
to punishment. 
Constitution of India-Article 311(2}-Tennination of Temporary Govt. 
servant without enquiry-Held valid. 
D 
The Respondent who was working as a temporary servant for 20 
years in the office of the Appellant was terminated with a non-speaking 
< 
order without holding any enquiry. 
.,, 
On challenge before the Service Tribunal, it was held that the order 
E 
of termination had been made by way of punishment without enquiry and 
hence violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution. 
In a writ petition by the Appellant, the High Court following the 
Judgment in Shamsher Singh's, [1974] 2 SCC 831 case held that the order 
F 
of termination was illegal and the writ petition was dismissed. The .High 
Court opined that decisions in Kaushal Kishore v. State of U.P., (1991] 1 
SCC 691 and Triveni Shankar Saxena v. State of U.P., AIR (1992) S.C. 496 
( 
were per incuriam since the decision in Shamsher Singh's case was not 
' 
considered by the Court therein. 
G 
Allowing the Appeal by the Appellant, this Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court was not right in its approach in upholding 
the order of the Tribunal. The High Court has totally misunderstood the 
applicability of the judgment in Shamsher Singh. The decision in that case 
related to a judicial officer whereas the present case is on relating to a 
H temporary Government employee. [932-F-H] 
-'-. 
930 
\ 
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES 1·. P.C. SAXENA 
931 
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, [1974] 2 SCC X.ll, rxplained and A 
distinguished. 
2. The termination simpliciter is not a penaltJ' and the (;overnment 
has power and jurisdiction under the contract of employment or Rult.>s to 
terminate simpliciter the services of ten1porary (;overnment servant 
without conducting an enquiry and such termination sirnpliciter does not B 
amount to termination for misconduct. [933-B] 
Kaushal Kishore v. State of UP., [1991] 1 SCC 691 and Triveni 
Shanker Saxena v. State of U.P., AIR (1992) SC 496, relied on. 
3. It is not necessary to interfere with the High Court judgment C 
under the facts and circumstances of the case. The Respondent must be 
deemed to have been in service from the date of termination till the date 
of his superannuation, but he is not entitled to backwages from the date 
of termination till the date of filing the petition in the Tribunal i.e. 
31.12.197&. However he will be entitled to arrears of salary from 1.1.1979 D 
and other conseqential benefits. [933-C-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4617 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.3.93 of the Allahabad High E 
Court in W.P.No. 2016 of 1991. 
D.V. Sehgal and AK Srivastava for the Appellants. 
S.A. Syed for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
F 
Delay condoned. Leave granted. 
Heard counsel for the parties. Respondent No. 1, while was working 
as Senior Inspector, District Supply Office, Lucknow, his services were G 
terminated by proceedings dated 14.7.1965 : 
"The services, of Sri Prakash Chandra Saxena, Senior Inspector, 
District Supply Office, Lucknow are terminated with effect from 
the date of service upon him of this order. He shall be paid one 
month's pay in lieu of notice." 
H 
932 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 
, 
A 
The said proceedings were challenged hy Respondent-I in the year 1978 
_,Y 
by filing a clain1 petition before lhl' Service Tribunal which was initially 
rejected by the Tribunal on the ground of delay But the High Court 
remitted the matter for decision on merits and the Tribunal hold that the 
order of termination had been made by way of punishment without enquiry 
B 
and hence violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution. When it was cha!-
lenged in Writ Petition No. 2016 of 1991 filed by the appellant, the High 
Court had dismissed by its Order dated 5.3.1993, following the decision of 
f 
this Court in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, [1974] 2 SCC 831, wherein 
it had been held that the Court had to lift the veil and find whether the 
t 
ground of termination was the foundation or the motive and if it was found 
c to be the foundation, the termination simplicitor would be illegal. It wa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.