RAM CHANDRA TRIPATHI versus U.P. PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL IV AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 2 S.C.R. 137 · Decided: 25-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

•. 
RAM CHANDRA TRIPATIU 
A 
v. 
U.P. PUBUC SERVICES TRIBUNAL IV AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 25, 1994 
[K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND 0.N. RAY, JJ.) 
B 
Service Law-Temporary employee-Confinnation in violation of 
>· 
Court's order-Deconfinnation-Employee deconfinned whether· entitled to 
opportunity of hearing--Termination simp/iciter of deconfinned employee on 
account of unsatisfactory service record including remarks in character c 
ro/H'alidity of. 
The appellant was appointed as ;:r., n i or ":ngineer in the Local Self· 
Government E;nglneerlng l;epartment of U.P. (LSGED) on October 8, 
1964. By an order dated 31st August, 1975 he was confirmed with effect 
from April 1, 1974. Subsequent to the establishment of U.P. Jal Nigam, he D 
,, 
was transferred from LSGED to U.P. Jal Nlgam <1n the same terms and 
conditions under whk~ he was working in LSGEb. later, when it was 
' 
detected that he was confircned contrary to an order passed by the High 
Court, an order of deconflrmatlo11 was passed without affordinl! him 
opportunity or hearing. However, by an order dated April 15, 1981 his E 
services were terminated on paY!llent of one month's salary in lieu or 
notice. 
The appellant challenged the termination order before the U.P. 
Services Tribunal contending that (1) he was a permanent emplo,ee and 
having rendered 16 years service, bis deconfirmation, without affording F 
• 
him opportunity, was Invalid; (2) the terminaiion order was passed ma/a 
fide for victimising him for his Trade Union actlvlties;and (3) the termlna· 
tlon order, based on stale and uncommunlcated adverse remarks was In 
essence a punitive order which was passed without C011owing the prescribed 
procedure. 
G 
The U.P. Jal Nlgam contested the case contending that since the 
appellant's cnnfirmatlon of the temporary service was In disregard of the 
High Court1s order the mistake was rectlOed by passing de-confirmation 
.... 
order for which no hearing was necessary; the appellant's temporary 
service was terminated under the service rules by giving him one month's H 
137 
138 
SUl'REME COURl' REPORTS 
[1994j 2 S.C.R. 
A salary In lieu or notice as bis services were found not at all satisfactory, 
and therefore, the termination order was not punitive. 
The Tribunal rejected the appeUa11t's claim holding that (i) the 
appellant was holding a temporary se1mce and the c;onlirmatloo given to 
B 
him by mistake was rectified; (II) the 01rder or termlo11tloo was not passed 
mala fide Gr by way or punishment but the same was passed after assessing 
bis service rec:ords \l'blcb were round to be not satisfactory and (3) since 
the Impugned order was passed by giving one month's salary in lieu or one 
,._ 
month's notice as per the c:ondltlons or service and without any stigma 
, 
attached to the order or termlnatlon,d1e same was valid. The High Court 
c upheld the order or Tribunal. 
In appeal to this Court It was contended on behalf or the appellant 
(1) that although no stigma was attached In the Impugned order or 
termination yet, In eflect,lt was a punitive order Intended to get rid or the 
D appellant because or bis union actMtles; (2) that the appellant bad 
rendered service for a total period or 16 years In LSGED and U.P. Jal 
Nigam and the bogey or unsatlsractor:r service was far from truth but a 
,, 
) 
device to get rid or the appellant by relying on stale service record for the 
year 1965"'6 and an adverse entry ma1le in the year 1978-79; (3) even If It 
Is assumed that adverse entries or 19711-79 bad been taken Into coasldera· l 
E lion after communicating the same to the appellant and rejecting bis 
representation, the fact remains that barring the said adverse entry or 
1978-79, the appellant did not suffer any adverse entry in the service record 
lo the recent past and the rating of the appellant as 'average' did not 
constitute any adverse remark; ( 4) If., with such rating as 'average' the 
F appellant was allowed to continue lo s1ervlce for a number of years, there 
was no reason, far less a fair reason, to bold the appeUant unsuitable for 
retention In service at a later stage; (5) that other temporary Junior 
Engineers, who were similarly clrcum11tanced as the appellant bad been 
made permanent but be was singled out for being terminated rrom service 
,_ 
G 
without any just and fair reason; and (6) that the termination order at an 
advanl'l!d stage or the appellant's careeir created a serious prejudice to him 
thereby practically depriving him of

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