LexDHANANJAY versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD, JALNA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A DHANANJAY v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD, JALNA JANUARY 30, 2003 B [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASA Y AT, JJ.] I Service Law: C Temporary government servant-Termination of services-Delinquent committed defalcation-Placed under suspension-Inquiry directed to be held- Criminal case filed against him culminated in acquittal-Pursuant to Government order dated 24.11. 1987 that a temporary servant could be discharged within a period of one year, services of delinquent terminated without holding an inquiry-Writ petition filed by delinquent on the ground D that termination order was stigmatic as II referred to factum of suspension- Dismissed by High Court-Held, it cannot be said that termination of services was not simpliciter or the misconduct was the foundation of passing the order- Acquittal of delinquent in criminal case is also not a factor to indicate that Department wanted to take action against him on his misconduct, to remove E him from service-High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition. F G Union of India v. Bihari Lal Sidhana, fl997) 4 SCC 385, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 726 of 2001. From the Judgment and Order dated 25 .2.1999 of the High Court of Bombay in W.P. 444/88. S.K. Dholakia and C.G. Solshe for the Appellants. Shivaji M. Jadhav for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered The appellant was appointed in Zilla Parishad, Jalna on May 13, 1985 on temporary basis for a period of one year. After expiry of that period, he H was again given a fresh appointment for one more year with effect from May 744 DHANANJA Y v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 745 14, 1986, after giving a break for one day. He was placed under suspension A on July I, 1987 on the ground that he had paid an amount of Rs. 18,000 to a contractor when the actual cost of repairs was only Rs.8,000. In the very suspension order, an enquiry also was directed in regard to the allegation of payment of Rs. 18,000 as against the actual cost of Rs. 8,000 spent towards repairs. A complaint also was made against him on criminal side in respect of the same allegation. Ultimately, after trial, he was acquitted. The respondent B passed an order terminating the services of the appellant. Aggrieved by this order of termination of services, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court, after considering the respective contentions of the parties, finding no merit in the writ petition, dismissed the same. Hence, the appellant is before us in this appeal. C Shri S.K. Dholakia, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, urged that the order of termination of services of the appellant though in terms is stated to be simpliciter, but, in fact, it is a result of the alleged misconduct against the appellant and, in other words, is stigmatic. In support of this submission, the learned counsel stated that the very order of suspension D shows that an enquiry was directed against the alleged misconduct with .a.,. view to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant to remove him from services; even a criminal complaint was filed to proceed against him and, in fact, he was prosecuted also pursuant to the complaint. Learned counsel submitted that the High Court committed an error in placing reliance on the E decision of this Court in Union of India v. Bihari Lal Sidhana, [ 1997] 4 SCC 385. He added that whether the order of termination of services in a given case is simpliciter or stigmatic depends on the facts of each case an<l, according to him, on the facts of the present case, the order of termination of services was not simpliciter but it was punitive attaching stigma to the appellant. In opposition, the learned counsel for the respondent made submissions supporting the impugned order and reiterated the very submissions that were made before the High Court. F It is not in dispute that the appellant was appointed on a temporary G basis; his services could be terminated without notice and without assigning any reason within a period of one year. In fact, his services were terminated within a period of one year under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules. The only question that is required to be answered is: whether the order of termination of services is simpliciter or is punitive attaching stigma to the appellant. No doubt in the order of suspension p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.