NEPAL SINGH versus STATE OF U. P. & ORS .

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 09-11-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
y 
0 
. 
·' 
NEPALS!NGH 
v. 
STATE OF U. P. & ORS . 
November 9, 1984 
[R. S. PATHAK, D. P. MADON AND M. P. THAKKAR, JJ.] 
Public Service-Termination of Service of a temporary government servant 
on the allegation ofmbconduct and corruption without following.provisiOns of 
Article 311 (2) of the Constitution is void and violative of Articles 14 and 16-
Competent Authorities cannot circumvent the mandate of Article 311 (2) and re1ort 
to the guise of an ex-facie innocuous termin:atlon order-U.P. Government Servants 
Conduct Rules 1956, Rule 29 read with Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16 and 
311 (2). 
1 
On an allegation that the appellant, a temporary Sub-Inspestor or Police. 
while posted at Pithoragarh had contracted in November 1964 a second marri-
age, while his first wife was alive, without obtaining the prior permission of the 
Government and in violation of Rule 29 of the U. P. Government Servants' 
Conduct Rules, 1956 the Superintendent of Po1ice, Shahjahanpur initiated in 
B 
c 
D 
1968 disciplinary proceedings under section 7 of the Police Act against him. 
E 
However, after the evidence was closed in January 1970, the Superintendent 
noticed that his action was without jurisdiction and pointed out the same to the 
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Range, who ordered the quashing 
of the disciplinary proceedings on March 12, 1970. 
About this time the Inspector General of Police, Uttar Pradesh issued a 
circular letter to the Superintendent of Police throughout the State requiring 
them to submit a list of Sub~Inspectors who fell in any of the following three 
categories : 
1. Whose reputation and integrity is very low and/or 
2. Who are genera11y involved in scandals, like drinking, immorality, etc. 
which blackens the face of the U. P. Police and/or 
3. Everywhere they are a big problem because they encourage gambling, excise 
offences, brothels, criminals, etc. 
F 
G 
The Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur drew up a list pf such Sub-
Inspectors on February 5, 1970 and directed them to appear before the Deputy 
Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Ran$• on February 10, 1970 durina his 
H 
B 
c 
D• 
F;, 
F 
G 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1985] 2 S.C.R. 
inspection of the district. The list included the name of the appellant with the 
note : 
"A corrupt Officer, who is not straight forward. 
Married two wives 
against Goverment Servants Conduct Rules. Does not do his duty 
sincerely. 
Wherever he goes creates problem". 
Thereupon, on April 27, 1970, the Deputy Inspector General of PoJice, 
Bareilly Range, made an order purporting to be under the rules published by 
Notification No. 230/Jl-B-1953 dated January JO, 1953 that the appellant's 
services were not required any rnore and were tern1inated with one month's pay 
in lieu of notice. 
The appellant thereupon filed a Writ Petition in the High Court against 
the order terminating his services and on November 17, 1972 a learned Single 
Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the 
order of termination was passed bonafide, that it was an order of termination 
simpliciter and that it did not constitute the removal of the appellant from 
service. On appeal filed by the appellant that vice was endorsed by a Division 
Bench of the High Court by its judgment and order dated March 13, 1973 and 
the appeal was dismissed holding that the impugned order was ex.facie innoCu· 
ous and could not be said to cast any stigma or be regarded ~as imposing the 
punishment of dismissal or removal. Hence the appeal by Special Leave of the 
Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD ; 1. It is well settled that in dealing with a government servant 
the State must conform to the constitutional requirements of Articles 14 and 16 
of the Constitution. An arbitrary exercise of power by the State violates these 
constitutional guarantees, for a fundamental implication in the guarantee of 
equality and of protection against discrimination is that fair and just treatment 
will be accorded tO all, whether individually or jointly as a class. When a govern .. 
ment servant satisfies the Court prima facie that•. an order terminating his 
services violates Articles 14 and 16 the- competent authority must discharge the 
burden of showing that the power to terminate the services was exercised 
honestly and in good faith, on valid considerations fairly and without 
discrimination. [5-E-GJ 
2. Where the services of a government servan

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