O.P. BHANDARI versus INDIAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.& ORS.

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 923 · Decided: 26-09-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.P. THAKKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
O.P. BHANDARI 
v. 
INDIAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. 
& ORS. 
B 
SEPTEMBER 26, 1986 
[M.P. THAKKAR AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
Indian Tourism Development Corporation (Conduct, Discipline 
~and Appeal) Rules, 1978: Rule Jl(v)-Constitutional validitjl of-
. 
/ 
Termination of Services by giving ninety days' notice or pay in lieu 
thereof-Whether violative of Articles 14 and 16( 1). 
' 
· .. ) 
Labour and services-Public Sector Undertaking-High Manage-
rial cadre-Services of-Illegal termination-Relief agains~Reinstate­
ment or compensation-Courf s discretion-Quantum of compensa-
tion-Factors to be considered. Employee entitled to relief under s. 89 of 
the Income-tax Act read with r. 21-A of the Income-tax Rules. 
Constitution of India, Articles 12, 14, 32 and 226---Public Sector 
Undertaking-A 'State'-High managerial cadre and employees-Dif-
ferential classification under service rules-Whether permissible. 
Rule 3I(v) of the Indian Tourism Development Corporation (Con-
duct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1978 provides that the serviceS of 
an employee, who had completed his probationary period and who has 
been confirmed or deemed to be confirmed, may be terminated by 
giving him 90 days' notice or pay in lieu thereof. The services of the 
appellant, who was an employee of the respondent-Corporation hold-
ing the post of Manager of a Hotel at the material time were terminated 
by Memorandum No. P-B(OP)-22 dated 18th September, 1984, in exer-
cise of the powers under the said rule by giving him pay for three 
months in lieu of notice. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant filed 
a writ petition in the High Court assailing the constitutional validity of 
r.· 3l(v) of the said Rules, which was summarily dismissed. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court, 
HELD: 1. The Indian Tourism Development Corporation is an 
923 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
924 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
instrumentality of the State and, therefore, 'State' within the para-
-" 
meters of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. [927D-E] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. 
Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr., [1986] 3 S.C.C. 156 applied. 
2.1 Rule 31(v) of the Indian Tourism Development Corporation 
(Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1978, is unconstitutional and 
); 
void, for such a rule which provides for terminatfon of the services of 
the employees of the respondent-Corporation simply by giving ninety 
days' notice or by payment of salary for the notice period in lieu of such ~ y 
notice, cannot co-exist with Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of 
\ 
India. The fundamental right embedded in these Articles is not a mere 
paper tiger nor is it so ethereal that it can be nullified or eschewed by a sim-
ple device of framing a rule which authorises termination of the services of 
an employee by merely giving a notice of termination. [930D-E; 928F; 929F] 
)' 
2.2 The tenure of service of a citizen who takes up employment 
with the State cannot be made to depend on the pleasure or whim of the 
competent authority unguided by any principle or policy, nor his 
services allowed to be terminated on an irrational ground arbitrarily or 
capriciously. Tue authorities cannot be invested with uncontrolled dis-
criminatory power to practise on considerations not necessarily based 
on the welfare of the organisation but possibly based on personal likes 
and dislikes, personal preferences and prejudices. Provincialism, caste-
ism, nepotism, religious fanaticism, and several other obnoxious factors 
may in that case freely operate on the mind of the competent authority 
in deciding whom to retain and whom to get rid of. And these dangers 
are not imaginary ones. Tuey are very much real in organisations where 
there is a confluence of employees streaming in from different States. 
Such a rule as in the instant case, is capable of robbing an employee of 
the dignity, and making him a supine person whose destiny is at the 
mercy of the concerned authority. The impugned rule, therefore, 
deserves to be quashed. [928H; 929A-B; D-F] 
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited & Anr. v. 
Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr., [1986] 3 S.C.C. 156; State Electricity· 
Board v. D.B. Ghosh, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 1014, referred to. 
3.1 Tue Court has full discretion in the matter of granting relief 
to suit the needs of the matter at hand. If satisfied that ends of justice so 
demand, the Court can certainly dire

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