LexOM PRAKASH GOEL versus HIMACHAL PRADESH TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. SHIMLA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.... • OM PRAKASH GOEL v. HIMACHAL PRADESH TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. SHIMLA AND ANR. MAY 6, 1991 [S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.) Civil Services: A B Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 311(2), 14 and 16-Ter- C mination of service by simple notice after conducting enquiry-Whether in the nature of camouflage and by way of punishment-Juniors retained in service but senior's service terminated-Whether arbitrary and discriminatory. Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Staff Reg- D ulations: Regulations 19(3)(b) and 39-Termination of service-Alle- gations of misconduct-Enquiry conducted-Order terminating service by simple notice passed-Whether valid-Whether in the nature of camouflage and by way of punishment-Senior's service terminated while retaining juniors in service-Whether arbitrary and discrimi- natory-Employee practising as lawyer since termination-Whether E entitled to backwages on reinstatement. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, a directly recruited Accountant in the respondent Corporation alleging that while working in the Transport Wing of the Corporation, he facilitated and abetted the embezzlement of Rs.100 by not ensuring that the amount found was F in excess, and thus he failed to serve the Corporation honestly and faithfully, that he made some fictitious entries in the Cash Book and that he made certain information public without the permission of the Managing Director. The petitioner replied that all the charges were fake and false. The leave sanctioned to the petitioner earlier for pro- secuting legal study was cancelled and the petitioner challenged the G same in the High Court but the case was adjourned. Meanwhile, the petitioner's services were terminated on the ground that be was no longer required and that one month's pay in lieu of notice would be paid in terms and conditions of his appointment letter and provisions of Staff Regulations of the Corporation. The petitioner challenged the same before the High Court, but the Writ Petition was dismissed in limine. H 701 A B c 702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R. In the appeal before this Con rt it was contended that the tennina-, lion was only a camouflage and that though the petitioner was still a temporary servant, yet the termination amounted to punishment, because of the manner in which it was passed. and the background behind it. It was also contended that though the termination order stated that the petitioner's services were no longer required, his juniors were retained and were continuing in service, in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Disposing of the Special Leave Petition, this Court HELD: 1.1 In a case of an order of termination, even that of a temporary employee, the Court has to see whether the order was made on the ground of misconduct if such a complaint was made and in that process the Court would examine the real circumstances, as well as the basis and foundation of the order complained of and if the Court is satisfied that the termination of services is not so innocuous as claimed to be and if the circumstances further disclose that it is only a o camouflage with a view to avoid an enquiry as warranted by Article 311(2) of the Constitution, then such a termination is liable to be quashed. [706E-F] Annop Jaiswal v. Government of India & Anr., [1984] 2 SCR 453; Nepal Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1985] 2 SCR 1 and Jarnail E Singh & Ors. etc. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [•1986] 2 SCR 1022, relied on. 1.2 In the instant case, the termination order, though appears to be innocuous was only intended to punish the petitioner for the miscon- duct, in respect of the allegations which are mentioned in the charges F that were served on him. As a matter of fact, the enquiry was con- ducted, but before the conclusion of the enquiry, the termination order was passed. Therefore, it is not difficult to see that the form of the termination order is only a cloak for an order of punishment. [707C-D] 1.3 Besides, the termination is also liable to be quashed on the G ground that it is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as it is clear from the records that while the petitioner's juniors are retained in service, the petitioner's services are terminated as no longer required. [708F, 709A-B] Jarnail Singh & Ors. etc. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1986] 2 SCR H 1022 and K.C. Joshi v.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.