RAM GOPAL CHATURVEDI versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 472 · Decided: 29-04-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

472 
RAM GOPAL CHATURVEDI 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
April 29, 1969 
[S. M. Snuu, R. s. BACHAWAT AND v. RAMASWAMI, II.] 
B 
Constitution of India. Art, 311 and A.rt. 320--Services of temporary 
6<JVtrnmtnt servant-Terminated without consulting Public Service Com· 
mission-No notic£, no opportunity to show cause-On advice of High 
Co11rt-Validity. 
Mc;dhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-perm•· 
ntnt Strvice) R11/es, 1960--Whtthtr hit by Arts. 14 & 16 of tht Constit•· 
ti on. 
The appellant was appointed tcmpor'1rily, to the judicial service in 
the respondent.State. 
On comP.'aints, that the appellant was associatin1 
with a girl, and was ta.king bribes, the Chief Justice of the High Court 
enquired into them and the High Court recommended to the State Govern· 
ment to terminate the appellant's service. 
The Government passed an 
order under r. 
12 of the 
M. P. Gover.iment 
Servants 
(Temporary 
and Quasi-permanent Service) Rules, 1960 staling only that the scrvic.s 
of the appellant are terminated from a specified day. 
The appellaat 
filed a w'rit petition in the High Court against this order. The High Court 
dismiased the petition. 
In appeal, to this Court, the appellant contended 
that (i) r. 12 was violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution u it 
oonferrcd arbitrary and unguided discretion to the Government~ (ii) tlae 
impugned order was irivalid as it was passed without consulting the State 
Public Service Commission under Art. 320(3)(c) of the 
Comtilution; 
(iii) the order was passed by way of punishment without givinji ~ 
appellant an oppoounity to show cause against the prC'pOSCd action and wu 
therefore violaltve of Art. 311 of the Constitution; (iv) tbe order was In 
violation of the principles of natural justice, as no charge-sheet wu SCl'Ved 
nor any departmental inquiry beld; and (v) the State Government ctrcd Ui 
blindly following the recommendations of the High Court. Repelling !he 
contentions, this Court, 
HELD : The appellant was a temporary goverrunent servant and was 
in not quasi-permanent service. 
His services could be tenninated CMI 
one n_wnth's notice unde'r r. 12. 
There was no provision in the order et 
appointment or in any agreement that his service could 
not 
be ,. 
terminated. 
(i) Rule 12 applies to all temporary government servant.. who are ... 
in quasi-permanent serviet'. 
All 1uch government servants are tree• 
alike. 
The argument that r. 12 conferred an arbitrary and unguided •-
ccelion was devoid of any merit. The services of a temporary governm.t 
IOl'Vant may be tcrmioated on one month's notiee whenever the governme.t 
thinks it necessary or expedient to do so for administrative reasons. It 
was impossible to define before hand all the circumstances in which t~e 
discretion could be excrci9ed. 
The discretion was necessarily left to tAe 
government. 
[4758) 
(ii) The provisions of Art. 320(3) (c) were not mandatory and did 
not confer anv riahts on the public servant and that the absence of coa· 
1uttation with the State Puhlic Service Commission did not afford him a 
ca111e Of action. [475G) 
c 
D 
E 
F' 
11 
' 
:'-
i• 
RAM OOPAL v. M. P. STATE (Bachawat. J.) 
4/, 3 
A/ 
State of U.P. v. M. L. Srivastava, (1958] S.C.R. 533, followed. 
(iii) On the face of it, the drder did not cast any stigma on the 
appellant's character or integrity nor did it visit him with any evil conae-
quences It was not puaed by way of punishment and the provisions of 
Art, 311 were not attracted. [476H]. 
It was immaterial that the otder was preceded by an informal inquiry 
B -
into the appellant's conduct with a view to ascertain whether he would 
be retained in service. [4.77A] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
State of Punjab v. Sukh Ra; Bahadur, (1968]_ 3 S.C.R. 234, followed. 
(iv) In tiie present case, the impugned order did not involve any ele· 
meat o( punishment nor did it deprive the appellant of any vested right to 
any office, The appellant was a temporary government servant and had no 
right to hold the office. The state government had the right to terminate bis 
services under r. 12 without issuing any notice to the appellant to show 
cause against the prop0$ed action. 
[477H] 
( v) The government rightly terminated the services, following the 
advice tendered by the High Court. The High Court is vested with the 
control over the subordinate judiciary. If the High Court found that the 
appellant was not a. lit person to be retained in service, it could properly 
ask the go

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