F.R. JESURATNAM versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: [1982] 1 S.C.R. 40 · Decided: 22-07-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
40 
P.R. JESURATNAM 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 
July 22, 1981 
[R.S. PATHAK AND 0. CHJNNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
Right to reinstatement to a post which is subsequently abolished due to the 
death of the project incharge-Even though the vires of the termination order, 
which was anterior to the closing of the project, is in issue, Supreme Court can 
adopt "non-liquet'' and decide the case based on the subsequent events. 
The appellant, a commissioned officer in the Indian Air-Force, on a 
General Court Martial was cashiered and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprison-
ment for six years. Later the Central Government remitted the unexpired por· 
tion of the punishment of rigorous imprisonment. 
Subsequently, he was 
appointed by the Indian Institute of Technology for a project work on a purely 
temporary basis and subject to verification of his character and antecedents from 
the Government and subject to the further condition that his services could be 
terminated on 24 hours notice in writing by either side. On a reference by the 
1.1.T., the Ministry of Defence by its letter dated November 19, 1977 invited 
attention to the Ministry of Home Affairs Me1norandum dated May 14, 1965 
to the effect that persons who were dismissed from service were disqualified 
from future employment under the Government but left it open to the I.I.T. 
whether it would follow that principle in the case of the appellant. The Professor 
under whom the appellant was working recommended the retention of the 
appellant in service. The I.I.T. did not accept the said recommendation and by 
its order dated January 21, 1978 terminated the appellant's services on the expiry 
of 24 hours. A writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the validity of the 
said order was dismissed in limine by the Delhi High Court and hence the appeal 
by special leave. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD : The relief claimed by the appellant for reinstatement to his post 
in the Institute must be denied for the reasons, namely, (a) the appointment was 
temporary only and could be terminated on 24 hours notice; (b) the Professor 
incharge of the project passed away subsequently in June 1978 and, therefore, 
the project in which he was engaged was finally closed and (c) the period for 
which the appellant's post of Senior Research Assistant had been, created had 
come to an end. [ 43 D-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 318 of 
1978. 
-
,. 
I ,.. 
• ,. 
-• 
' 
-
P.R. JESURATNAM v. UNION (Pathak, J.) 
41 
From the judgment and order dated 8th November 1978 of the 
A 
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.W. ~<o. 786 of 1978. 
Appellant in person 
P.A. Francis, Miss A. Subha,hini and R.N. Poddar, for Respon· 
dent No. I. 
R.N. Sharma, R. N. Poddar and N.N. Sharma, for Respondent 
Nos. 2 and 3. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PATHAK, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against 
the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dismissing in limine the 
appellant's writ petition against an order of the Indian Institute of 
Technology, Delhi terminating his services. 
The writ petition by the appellant was brought on the follow· 
ing allegations. The appellant, with a Master's degree in Aeronau-
tical Engineering, was commissioned in the Indian Air Force on 
March I, 1958 and in due course was promoted to the rank of 
Squadron Leader. 
During the years 1972 
to 1975 he was an 
Assistant Director in the Rockets and Missiles Department of the 
Defence Research and Development Organization, New Delhi. In 
January 1975, the appellant was tried by a General Court Martial 
on four charges and was convicted on two : (l) under s. 45, Air 
Force Act, 1950 for behaving in a manner unbecoming of the position 
and character expected of him as an officer in meeting secretly on 
several occasion a foreign national, contrary to the existing order 
on the subject and (2) under s. 65, Air Force Act, 1950 for impro· 
perly accepting a gift from a foreign national. He was found not 
guilty on the remaining two charges. On March 4, 1975, the General 
Court Martial directed that he be cashiered and suffer rigc•rous 
imprisonment for six months. 
The findings and sentence of the 
General Court Martial were confirmed by the Chief of the Air Staff 
on April 8, 1975 and he directed that the sentence of rigorous 
imprisonment be carried out by confinement in civil prison. Sub-
sequently, by an order dated May 24, 1975, the Central Government 
re

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