MATHEW P. THOMAS versus KERALA STATE CIVIL. SUPPLY CORPN. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 220 · Decided: 19-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MATHEW P. THOMAS 
>--.) 
v. 
KERALA STATE CIVIL. SUPPLY CORPN. LTD. AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 19, 2003 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Termination of services-Probationer-Termination simplicitor on 
c alleged ground of misconduct-Challenge to--Dismissed by Trial Court-
Appeal/writ petition/writ appeals dismissed by the High Court-On appeal, 
. ...__ 
Held, ihough services of a probationer terminated by an order of termination 
simplicitor it appears to be founded on misconduct-Necessity to go beyond 
the order of termination to find out whether suitability of the probationer was 
D aqjudged to continue him in service or whether he was removed from service 
mainly on the foundation of misconduct-Since the services of the incumbent 
was terminated for his failure in performing duties and not on the foundation 
of alleged misconduct, there is no good reason to interfere·with the findings 
of the High Court. 
E 
'Foundation'. and 'motive' in connection with order/termination 
simplicitor-Discusied. 
Appellant-employee was appointed as Junior Manager (Quality 
Control) by the respondent-employer. On complaint, he was served with 
a show cause _notice and on consideration of his explanation, authorities 
F 
dropped further proceedings against him. However, he was again found 
negligent in performing his duties and was again served with a show cause 
notice with some stipulation of misconduct. However, not satisfied with 
the explanation, authorities ultimately terminated his services. Against the 
termination order, appeal and subsequently writ petition and writ appeals 
-~ 
were dismissed by the High Court but allegations of misconduct in the show 
G cause notices were directed to be withdrawn. Hence the _present appeal. 
• It was contended for the appellant that though the order of 
termination appears to be simplicitor but it was founded on the alleged 
misconduct against the appellant; and that no distinction was drawn 
between allegation of misconduct and mere failure in performing duties 
I 1-
H by the appellant. 
220 
-.,...,.._ 
i 
' 
-
MATHEWP. THOMASv. KERALASTATECIVILSUPPLYCORPN. LTD. 
221 
On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that since the services A 
of the appellant was not found satisfactory during probation period, order 
of termination simplicitor was rightly passed by the authorities. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. It is clear from the order of termination that the B 
respondents did not rely on allegation of misconduct jn the show-cause 
notice. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment rightly observed 
that the appointing authority had abandoned those charges and 
concentrated only on the lapses committed by the appellant in wrongfully 
recommending acceptance of bad stock. Even otherwise these allegations C 
in the show cause notice stand withdrawn as per the direction given by 
the High Court. [228-F-G) 
1.2. Whether an order of termination is simplicitor or punitive has 
ultimately to be decided having due regard to the facts and circumstances 
of each case. Many a times the distinction between the foundation and D 
motive in relation to an order of termination either is thin or overlapping. 
It may be difficult either to categorize or classify strictly orders of 
termination simplicitor falling in one or the other category, based on 
misconduct as foundation for passing the order of termination simplicitor 
or on motive on the ground of unsuitability to continue in service. If the 
form and language ofthe so called order of termination simplicitor of a E 
probationer clearly indicate that it is punitive in nature or/and it is 
stigmatic there may not be any need to go into the details of the 
background and surrounding circumstances in testing whether the order 
of termination is simplicitor or punitive. In such cases it becomes necessary 
to travel beyond the order of termination simplicitor to find out what in F 
reality is the background and what weighed with the employer to terminate 
the services of a probationer. In that process it also becomes necessary to 
find out whether efforts were made to find out the suitability of the person 
to continue in service or he is in reality removed from service on the 
foundation of his misconduct. [229-G-H; 230-A-D) 
Deepti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for 
Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Ors., [1999) 3 SCC 60 and Payendra Narayan 
Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PG/ of Medical Sciences 

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