RAVINDRA KUMAR MISRA versus U.P. STATE HANDLOOM CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 501 · Decided: 15-10-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
RA VIND RA KUMAR MISRA 
v. 
U.P. STATE HANDLOOM CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. 
OCTOBER 15, 1987. 
A 
[RANGANATH MISRA & MURART MORON DUTT, JJ.] 
ll 
U.P. State Handloom Corporation Rules: Rules 63 & 68-
Temporary emplpyee-Termination of service-Whether termination 
simpliciter or dismissal. 
. 
Rule 63 ofthe U.P. State Handloom Corporation Rules stipulates 
,.._ termination of temporary service on one month's notice on either side. 
C 
' 
Rule 68 provides that if the punishment of discharge or dismissal is 
imposed, an enquiry commensurate with requirements of natural 
justice is a condition precedent. 
The appellant was employed in the aforesaid Corporation on 
D 
temporary basis. The order of appointment stated that his services were 
liable for termination with one month's notice or one month's pay in 
lieu of notice on either side. He was placed under suspension in 
November 1982 on charges of misconduct, dereliction of duty, mis-
_., 
management and showing fictitious production entries. That order, 
however, was revoked in November 1983 and his services terminated 
E 
forthwith by notice entitling him to one month's salary. The High Court 
held that the termination was not punitive and the question of breach of 
principles of natural justice did not arise. 
In this appeal by special leave it was contended that the appellant 
was entitled to the protection of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, 
that though his order of termination was innocuous, the setting in which 
it has been made clearly makes it an order of dismissal punitive in 
character and that as his service was determined by the order attaching 
stigma the appellant was entitled to a hea~ing commensurate with rules 
of natural justice and in the absence of the opportunity of being heard 
the order was liable to be quashed. 
F 
G 
...,. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: As long as the adverse feature of the employee remains 
the motive and does not become transferred as the foundation of the 
order of termination, it is unexceptionable. Whether 'motive' has be-
H 
501 
502 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[.1988] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
come the foundation has to be decided by the Court with reference to . )., 
the facts of a given case. [SJ OF-GI 
It is necessary for every employer to assess the service of the 
temporary incumbent in order to find out a~ to whether he should be 
confirmed in his appointment or his services should be terminated. It 
B may also be necessary to find out whether the officer should be tried for 
some more time on temporary basis. Since both in regard to a tern- '1 
porary employee or an officiating employee in a higher post such an 
assessment would be necessary, merely because the appropriate author-
ity proceeds to make an assessment and leaves a record of its views the 
same would not be available to be utilised to make the order of termina-
C lion following such assessment punitive in character. [S09G-H; SlOA-B] 
! 
There may be cases where an enquiry is undertaken and prima --1 
facie material for serious charges are found; by diclosing the result 
of such preliminary enquiry, the officer concerned is put under sus-
pension in contemplation of disciplinary action. After such steps have 
D been taken, the employer/appropriate authority decides not to continue 
the departmental proceedings but makes an order terminating the 
service. [SlOC-Dl 
In the instant case the appellant was a temporary servant and had 
no right to the post. Both under the contract of service as also the 
Service Rules governing him the employer had the right to terminate his '-
E services by giving him one month's notice. The order of termination 
was in innocuous terms. It did not cast any stigma on him nor did it visit 
him with any evil .consequences. The order was, therefore, not open to 
.._ 
challenge. [SIIC-D] 
The appellant is not entitled to compensation under the law. But 
F 
since he has been put out of employment at an advanced age and it may 
be difficult for him to get an alternate employment, the Corporation to "'-· 
pay him a consolidated amount of Rs.25,000. [SUFI 
Purshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, 11958] SCR 828; 
Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. The Union of India, 11964] S SCR 190; 
G Shamsher Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, 1197511SCR814; Regional 
Manager & Anr. v. Pawan Kumar Dubey; 11976] 3 SCR 540; State of 
U.P. v. Ram Chandra Trivedi, 1197711 SCR 452 and State of Orissa & _\,.. 
Anr. v. Ram Narayan Dass, 1196111SCR606, referred to. 
C

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