MANAGER GOVT. BRANCH PRESS & ANR. versus D. B. BELLIAPPA

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 458 · Decided: 30-11-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
A 
B 
c 
D 
458 
MANAGER GOVT. BRANCH PRESS & ANR. 
V. 
D. B. BELLIAPPA 
November 30, 1978 
[R. S. SARKARIA, V. D. TuLZAPURKAR AND A. P. SEN, JJ.J 
Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16(1), protection of, when available 
to temporary employees-S. 16(1) "appointment", Scope, Incumbent on dismiss-
ing authority to disclose reason for termination of services~ when specific charge 
of hostile discrimination. 
The services of Belliappa, a temporary Class IV employee, were terminated 
without assigning any reason, albeit in accordance with the conditions of his 
service, while three other employees, similarly situated, junior to Balliappa in 
the same temporary cadre, were retained. 
The order terminating his services, 
was preceded by a show-cuase notice of proposed disciplinary action 
against 
him, but otherwise, there was nothing to show that the service reoord of Belliappa 
was, in any way, inferior to his three juniors who have been retained in service. 
Furthermore, neither the dismissal order nor the appellant's counter affidavit assign-
ed any reason for the termination and the appellant had throughout maintained 
that there was no nexus between the show-cause noti·.::e and the impugned action. 
The High Court allowed a writ p'etition of Belliappa, holding- that the order termi-
nating his services, contravened the guarantee of equal treatment embodied in 
Article 16 of the Constitution. 
It was contended that Belliappa was a temporary employee, and his services 
E 
could be terminated at any time without notice, and that Articles 14 and 16 are 
not attracted when the services of a temporary employee are terminated in ac-
cordance with the conditions of his service. 
Dismissing th'e appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The protection of Articles 14 and 16(1) will be aW.ilable even tc> 
a temporary Government servant if he has been arbitrarily discriminated against 
F 
and singled out for harsh treatment in preference to his juniors similarly cir-
cumstanced. 
The competent authority may have a discretion under the con-
ditions of service governing the employee, to terminate bis services without notice, 
but such discretion has to lbe exercised in accordance with reason and fair play, 
and not capriciously. Arbitrary invocation or enforcement of a service condition 
terminating the service of a temporary employee, may itself constitute denial of 
equal p:"<Jtection and offend the Equality clause in Articles 14 
and 
~6(1 ). 
G 
[464B-E] 
El 
Dodtlaiah v. State of Mysore, AIR 1967 Mysore 223; Union of India v. Prem 
Parkash Midha. [1965] 69 SLR 655 (SC); State of U.P. v. Ram Chandra Tri-
vedi, [1977] 1 SCR 462; and Madan Singh Puran Singh ;v. Union of India 197Z 
SLR 67 (Delhi); referred to. 
2. The expression "appointment" used in Art. 16(1) will ihclUde terminatiorr 
of or removal from service, also. The expression "matters relating to employ-
ment", is not confined to initial matters prior to the act of employment, but 
comprehends all matters in relation to employment both prior and subsequent to 
GOVT. PRESS v. BELL!APPA (Sarkaria, J.) 
459 
the employment which are incidental to the employment and form part of the 
A 
terms and conditions of such employment, iUCh as, provision~ as to salary, in-
crements, leave, gratuity, pension, age of 11uperannuation, promotion and even 
termination of employment. [464E·G] 
General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari, [1962] 2 S.C.R. 586; 
applied. 
The Union of India v. Pandurang Kashinath 
More, AIR 1962 SC 630; 
differentiated. 
3. Where there· is a specific charge of arbitrary discrimination or some hostile 
or improper motive is imputed to the authority terminating the service, it is in-
cumbent on the authority to dispel that charge by disclosing to the court, the 
reason or motive which impelled it to take the impugned action. 
Excepting 
perhaps, in cases analogous to thOje covered by Art. 311(2) proviso (c), the 
authority cannot withhold such information from the court on the excuse, that 
the impugned order is purely administrative and not judicial, having been passed 
in exercise of its administrative discretion under the rules governing the condi-
tions of the service. [467A-B] 
B 
c 
Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. The 
Union of India, [1964] 5 SCR 
190; 
Green v. A1nalgamated ETJgineering Union, [1971] l All. E.R. 114; and Khudi 
D 
Ram v. State of West Bengal, [1975] 2 SCR 832 at 845, supported. 
4. The archaic common law concept that employment was a matter 

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