NEPAL SINGH versus STATE OF UP. AND ORS.

Citation: [1980] 3 S.C.R. 613 · Decided: 15-04-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

i 
i 
' 
~ 
), 
~ 
~· 
J 
613 
NEPAL SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF UP. AND ORS. 
April 15, 1980 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] 
Termination Sinzpliciter-An order tetminating the services of a te1nporary 
.Government servant and ex-facie innocuous in that it does not cast any 
stignuz on tile Government servant or visits him with penal consequences 
a1nounts to termination simpliciter-Order does not contravene Article 311 (2) 
of the Constitution of India 1950. 
The appellant was a temporary sub-inspector of Police. While 
he 
v.•as 
posted at Shahjahanpur the SuperintenUent of 
Police, 
Shahjahanpur 
con1-
menced disciplinary proceedings against him on the 
charge 
that he 
had 
violated Rule 29 of the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 in as 
n1uch as without prior permission of the Government he had 
contracted 
a 
second marriage in November, 1964, while his first wife was alive. At the stage 
of evidence, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bareilly made an order 
on March 12, 1970 quashing the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that 
the offence has been committed at Pithoragarh, situated in a different police 
roang~, and therefore, the proceeding_s ta.ken against the appellant were ..... incompe-
tcnt. 
1\-feanwhile, on March 8, 1970, the Inspector General 
of Police, 
Uttar 
Pradesh, had issued a letter to all Superintendents of Police in the State direct-
ing them to submit a list of Sub-inspectors whose reputation and integrity \\'ere 
very low or who were generally involved in scandalous conduct, drinking, im-
morality or other acts injurious to the reputation of the Police Service or who 
were involved encouraging crime. The Superintendent o·f Police, Shahjahanpur 
included the name of the appellant in the list submitted by him. On April 27, 
1970, the Dy. Inspector General of Police made an order 
terminating 
the 
services of the appellant, reciting that the services of the appellant ''are no 
more required and that he will be considered to 
have 
ceased 
to 
be in 
service .... '' 
The appell•ant filed a Writ Petition against the order tern1inating his services 
and claimed that the order contravened .A.rticle 311(2) of the Constitution 
inasmuch as it was an order in1posing the punishment of dismissal or rem9val 
from service without satisfying the conditions prescribed therein. Allegations 
of fnala/i<Je were also iµade. The Writ Petition was dismissed. An appeal to the 
Division Bench was also dismissed. Hence the appeal by special leave. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
}J.ELD : 1. It is now settied law that an order terminating the services of 
a temporary Government servant and ex facie innocuous in that it does not 
-cast any stigma on the Government ser\·ant or visits him with penal conse-
B 
quences must be regarded as effecting a termination simpliciter, but if it is 
diseovered on the basis of material adduced that although innocent 
in 
its 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
614 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] 3 s.c.R. 
terms the order was passed in fact 'vith a view to punishing the Government 
servant, it is a punitive order which can be passed only after complying with 
Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. 
[615H, 616A·B] 
2. The question which calls for determination in all such cases is whether 
the facts satisfy the criterion repeatedly laid down by this Court that an order 
is not passed by wa.y of punishment, and is merely an order of termination 
simpliciter, if the material against the Government servant 
on 
which 
the 
superior authority has acted constitutes the · motive and not the foundation for 
the order. The application of the test is not always easy. In each case 
it is 
necessary to examine the entire range of facts carefully and consider whether 
in the light of those facts the superior authority intended to punish the Gov-
ernment servant or, having regard to his character, conduct and 
suitability 
in ;elation to the post held by him it was intended simply to terminate his 
services. The function of the Court is to discover the nature of the order by 
attempting to ascertain \.Vhat was the motivating consideration in thf; mind of 
the authority which prompted !he order. 
[616B-E] 
In the instant case: (a) the appellant was a temporary Government servant, 
and the question whether he should be retained in service was u matter which 
arose directly during the drive instituted by the Inspector General of Police 
in March 1970 for weeding out Police Of

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