JAI SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 734 · Decided: 18-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JAi SINGH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 18. 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Termination-Propriety of-Daily wage constables on ad hoc basis in 
C auxiliary battalion-Report of misconduct of some constables-Decision of 
disbandment of the auxiliary batta/ion-Te1mination of their services-Jn 
departmental representation and appeal, termination was stated to be on 
account of disbandment of battalion and they not having been found suitable 
for absorption in regular service due to report of misconduct-Dismissal of 
D their Writ Petition by High Court-On appeal, held: Termination wasjustified-
lt was a simple order of termination as permitted by the terms of employment 
and the rules---Their misconduct was only a motive and not foundation of 
termination. 
Misconduct--Whether motive or foundation for termination-Held: It is 
E to be a4judged in the factual background of each case. 
Appellants were recruited as "Daily Wage Constables" on ad-hoc basis 
by respondent No. 3. They were posted in an auxiliary battalion. A decision 
was taken by the respondents to disband the said battalion and to install a 
permanent battalion in its place. Appellants along with others went on a general 
F strike. Such recruits were considered for being posted in permanent battalion. 
The services of the appellants were terminated on the ground that their 
services were no longer required due to disbandment of the unit The conduct 
of appellants had been shown in Certificate of service as 'unsatisfactory'. Their 
representations against termination were rejected observing that their 
G services were no longer required after the disbandment of the battalion and 
they were not found suitable for absorption on regular basis due to their 
misconduct and their attitude. Their departmental appeal was also rejected. 
Their Writ Petitions were also dismissed by the High Court. Hence the 
present appeals. 
H 
734 
JAi SINGH v. U.0.1. [PASAYAT, J.] 
735 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
A 
·' 
HELD: 1. The order of termination cannot be faulted in the background 
of the facts that the conduct for which the appellants were not found suitable 
for regularization cannot be said to be becoming of members of a disciplined 
force; that it was a simple order of termination as permitted by the terms of 
appointment and/or by the Rules; and that the indiscipline to which reference B 
was made to find them unsuitable was not the foundation of the termination 
order, but at the most the motive for it.1737-B-E] 
2. In what situation the allegation of misconduct will be the motive and 
in what cases it will be foundation for termination of service has to be adjudged C 
in the factual background of each case. 1738-A-B] 
Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and 
Anr., [1992] 2 SCC 21; Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., [1974] 2 
SCC 831; Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. and Ors. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor 
Sabha and Ors., [1980] 2 SCC 593; A.G. Benjamin v. Union of India, (1967) D 
1 LLJ 718; State of Punjab v. Sukh Raj Bahadur, AIR (1968) SC 1089; 
Dhananjay v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna, 12003] 2 SCC 
386; Mathew P. Thomas v. Kera/a State Civil Supply Corporation Limited 
and Ors., [2003] 3 SCC 263; Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose 
National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta, [ 1999] 3 SCC 60; Pavanend~a 
Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PG! of Medical Sciences, [20021 l SCC E 
520 and State of Haryana and Anr. v. Satyender Singh Rathore, [2005] 7 SCC 
518, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 510 of 2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.2004 of the High Court of Delhi F 
at New Delhi in W.P. (Civil) No. 4794/1995. 
With Civil Appeal Nos. 512/2006, 513/2006, 511/2006 and 514/2006. 
V. Sivasubramanian, Yudhveer Yadav and J.M. Nanavati Associaties 
(N.P.) for the Appellant. 
G 
Indra Sawhney, Kuna! Verma and Sushma Suri for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. These appeals involve identical questions and, H 
736 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A therefore, are disposed of by this common judgment. Writ Petitions filed by 
the Appellants were dismissed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court 
holding that termination of their services suffered from no infirmity. 
Civil appeal No. 510 of 2006 relates to writ petition no. 4794 of 1995 
while other appeals relate to othe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.