G.B. PANT AGRICULTURAL AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY versus KESHO RAM

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 917 · Decided: 05-05-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA

Judgment (excerpt)

')., 
G.B. PANT AGRICULTURAL AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY A 
v. 
KESHO RAM 
MAY 5, 1994 
fK. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India: Article 311(2)-Employee of G.B. Pant Agricul-
tural & Technology University-Tennination of service of employee under 
tenns of appointment-Held, order not violative or Article 311(2) as University • 
is not governed by the Article. 
c 
Service Law : G.B. pant Agricultural & Technology University : 
Asstt. Block superintendent-Tcnnination of service-Held, it is open 
to authorities, in terms of order of appointment or relevant rules, to terminate 
, 
service of a ten1pora1y employee without conducting an inquiry. 
D 
• 
The respondent was appointed as Asstt. Block Superintendent by the 
' 
petitioner-University in November, 1972 subject to the terms of the con-
tract that his services would be liable to be terminated with one month's 
• 
notice or pay in lieu thereof. He was irregular antl was absent without 
obtaining leave. His services were terminated in March 1976. He filed a E 
suit for a declaration that the order of termination was illegal, as it was 
by way of punishment and be was not given an opportunity to defend 
himself. The suit was decreed. On appeal, the decree was set aside. On 
.. 
second appeal, the High Court held that the order though innocuous, was 
> 
passed without enquiry and, therefore, was violative of Article 311(2) of 
the Constitution. It set aside the decree of the appellate court and con-
F 
firmed that of the trial court. 
Disposing of the special leave petition tiled by the University, this 
Court 
G 
HELD: l. Since the University is not governed by Article 311(2) of 
the Constitution, the finding of the High Court that the order of termina-
tion is violative of Article 311(2) is clearly illegal. [919-G-H] 
_,. 
2.1. Termination simplicitor is not per se by way of punishment nor 
does it visit with penal consequences. The effect of the order has to be H 
917 
918 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
looked into. If it is by way of punishment, then necessarily an inquiry has 
got to be made in accordance with the rules. Olhenvise, it is open to the 
authorities, in terms of the order of appointment or the relevant rules, to 
terminate the service of a temporary employee without conducting an 
enquiry. (919-E-H) 
B 
2.2. In the instant case, the respondent was a te1nporary e111ployee. 
The action was taken as he was irregular in attending office and absent 
without obtaining leave. So the termination cannot be said to be for 
misconduct since the order was passed under the conditions of the ap-
pointment, it per se is not illegal. (919-D-G) 
C 
23. However, on the facts of the case the decree of the High Court, 
D 
E 
as regards reinstatement of the respondent into the service, not interfered 
with, but he will not be entitled to any back wages. (920-B-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 4420 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.8.92 the Allahabad High 
Court in 6.A. No. of 1982. 
P.P. Rao, Raj Kr. Gupta and Rajesh for the Appellant. 
R.K. Agnibotri for the Reopondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
F 
We have heard the learned counsel on both sides. The respondent 
was appointed as Asstt. Block Superintendent on November 30, 1972, 
subject to the terms of the contract. Two of the terms, relevant for the 
purpose of this case, are that his service was liable to be terminated with 
one month notice or pay in lieu thereof as per clause 9, and such termina· 
tion would be subject to arbitration as provided under clause 14. The 
G employee also shall be, subject to clause 12, bound by the law, statutes and 
regulations issued by the officer or authority of the University, competent 
to issue in that behalf and was in force. On March 26, 1976 the service of 
the respondent was terminated. The respondent filed the civil suit for a 
declaration that his order of termination was illegal, as he was not given 
H an opportunity to defend himself, and that it was by way of punishment. 
l 
\_
' 
I 
r
·~, 
• 
l 
' , 
G.B. PANT AGRICULTURAL & TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY '· KESHO RAM 919 
The trial court in its decree dated 24.4.1981 decreed the suit. On appeal, A 
the District Judge set aside the order. When second appeal was filed in 
the High Court, initially it was dismissed on the ground of limitation. In 
C.A. No. 785/89, this Court set aside the order of the High Court and 
remanded th

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