S. GOVINDARAJU versus K.S.R.T.C. & ANR.

Citation: [1986] 2 S.C.R. 509 · Decided: 15-04-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

509 
S. WVINDARAJU 
v. 
K.S.R.T.C. & ANR. 
APRIL 15, 1986 
[K,N. SINGH AND 0, CHINNAf'l'A REDDY, JJ.] 
~-~ 
Karnataka 
Road 
Transport 
Corporation 
(Cadre 
& 
Recruitment) Regulations, 1982 - Regulation 10(5) - State Road 
Transport 
Corporation -
Conductor -
Services 
terminated 
without enquiry - Legality of - Whether principles of natural 
A 
B 
justice violated -
Opportunity of e;cplanation - Entitlement 
c 
~and necessity of. 
» Y 
Regulation 10(5) of the Regulations (Karnataka Road 
Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations 1982 
provides that during temporary/Badli employment a candidate if 
terminated/re11K1ved from service as unsuitable for the post, he 
0 
will forfeit his chance for the appointment in terms of his 
selection. 
The appellant was selected for appointment as Conductor 
I'- in the Karnataka State Road 
Transport Corporation -
a 
statutory authority constituted under the Road Transport 
E 
Corporation Act 1950. His name was placed on the select list 
prepared by the Selection Colllllittee constituted under the 
Karnataka 
State 
Road 
Transport 
Corporation 
(Cadre 
and 
"f Recruitment) Regulation 1982, 
He was not given a regular 
appointment but, he was appointed to work aa Conductor in 
-¥ temporary vacancy. lie continued to work for a period of llKlre 
F 
' 
than 240 days. While he was working as Conductor, his services 
were terminated under Regulation 10(5) of the Regulations on 
the ground of his being found unsuitable for the post without 
giving any opportunity of explanation. The termination order 
further stated that the appellant would forfeit his chance for 
appointment in terms of selection and his name shall stand 
G 
deleted from the select list. 
The appellant challenged the validity of teI'llination 
order before the High Court in a Writ Petition. The High Court 
di81d.aeed 
the Writ Petition holding that the order of 
tend.nation was made in terms under which employment waa given 
H 
A 
510 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 2 s.c.R. 
to him and it did not amount to retrenchment in view of s. ,_,. 
2(00)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD 
1. The appellant was not afforded any opportunity 
B 
of explanation before. the issue of the impugned order. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Consequently, the order is rendered null and void being 
inconsistent with the principles of natural justice. Therefore~-
the order of the High Court as also the order of termination 
are set aside and the appellant shall be treated in service 
and be paid his back wages and other benefits. (514 C-D] 
2. The Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and .J 
Recruitment) Regulations 1982 which regulate the conditions of 
service of its employees, are statutory in nature having been lf \. 
framed under s. 45(2)(c) of the Road Transport Corporation 
Act. Once a candidate is selected and his name is included in 
the select list in accordance with the Regulations, he gets a 
right to be considered for appointment as and when vacancy 
arises. On the removal of his name from Select List, serious 
consequences entail as he forfeits his right to employment in 
future. In such a situation even though the Regulations do not 
stipulate for affording any opportunity to the employee, the.li 
principle of natural justice would be attracted and the 
employee would be entitled to an opportunity of explanation, 
though no elaborate inquiry would be necessary. Giving an 
opportunity of explanation would meet 
the bare minimal 
requirement of natural justice. Before the services of an 
employee are terminated, resulting into forfeiture of his 'Y 
right to be 
considered for employment, 
opportunity of 
explanation 1111St 
be afforded to the employee concerned. 
-~ 
[513 D-E; 513H; 514 A-C] 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION 
1339(NL) of 1986. 
Ci vi 1 Appeal 
No. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.6,85 in the High 
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.P. No, 9171 of 1985, 
R.K. Garg, 
V. Laxminarayana and D.K. Garg for the 
Appellant. 
G.B. Pai, N.D.B. Raju, Miss Deepa and Vineet Kumar for 
the Respondent. 
•!! 
S, GOVINDARAJU v. K.S.R.T.C. 
[SINGH, J,] 
511 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
SINGH, J. Special Leave to appeal is granted. 
This appeal is directed against the order of the High 
Court of Karnataka dismissing the respondents' writ petition 
under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of 
B 
termination of service on the ground that it was violati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.