S. R. TEWARI versus DISTRICT BOARD AGRA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1964] 3 S.C.R. 55 · Decided: 15-04-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA, J.C. SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
S. R. TEWARI 
v. 
DISTRICT BOARD AGRA AND ANOTHER 
(B. P. SINHA C. J., J. C. SRAH and 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JJ.) 
56 
District Board-Engineer under the Bowrd --Termination 
of aervice-Power of Board- Statutory Body-Disciplinary 
action-Writ Petition-High Oonrt's power to interfere-U.P, 
District Boarda Act, 1922(U.P. X of 1922), 88. 82, 84-Didricl 
Board Rulea, r. JA(iv)-Oonstitution of India, Art. 226. 
The appellant was an Engineer of the District Board. 
The Board resolved to terminate the services of the appellant 
after giving him salary for three months in lieu of notice and 
served a notice upon him. The appellant preferred an appeal 
to the State Government against the action of the Board but it 
was dismissed. He filed a wnt petition before the High Court 
but it was also dismissed. 
The appellant contended that 
the B0ard was 
not 
invested by 
the District Boards Act, 1922, with any power 
to determine the employment of a servant of the Board 
otherwise than by way of dismissal as punishment. The respon-
dents contended that, the appellant not being a civil servant 
of the State, no petition was maintainable before the High 
Court for a declaration that his employment not lawfully 
terminated. 
Held that the High Court has, in a writ petition under 
Art. 226 of the Constitution, power to declare invalid the act 
of a statutozy body, if by doing the act the body has acted in 
breach of a mandatory obligation imposed by statute, even if 
by making the declaration the body is compelled to do some-
thing which it does not desire to do. The High Court had 
jurisdiction to declare that the employment of the appellant 
was not lawfully terminated, though it may be exercised only 
when the court is satisfied that departure is called for from the 
rule that a contract of servic• will not ordinarily be specifically 
enforced. 
Municipal Board, Shahjahanpur v. Sardar Sukha Singh 
t. L. R. (1937) All. 434, Ram Babu Rathaur v. Diviaional 
J!JfJ 
.l;il 15 
1963 
S.R. Temari 
•• 
District Boiird 
Air• 
Shoh J. 
56 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. 
Manager, Life Insurance Oorporation of lmlirJ, A. I. R. (1961) 
All. 502, Dr. 8. B. Dutt v. Univer.ity of Delhi, (1959] 
S. C. R. 1236 and Vina v. 
National Dock L'Zbour BorJra, 
L. R. [1957] A. C. 488, referred to. 
Held further tha< s. 82 of the Act, which gave the Board 
power to appoint the Engineer also gave it the power to 
terminate the appointment. 
Power ta appoint ordinarily 
carries with it the power to 
terminate the 
appointment. 
The procedure 
for 
termination 
of 
service 
was 
laid 
down by r. 3A(iv) of the District Board Rules. 
The employ· 
ment was terminated by giving a notice in accordance with 
this rule and the authority competent to terminate it was the 
authority competent to appoint the succe,.or of the servant 
conocrned. The dismissal of a servant of the Board has to be 
in accordance with the mies made under s. 34 which provided 
for giving a rea•onable opportunity and a show cau•e notice. 
This procedure is not applic•ble to termination of service. 
Dismissal means determination of employment as a 
method of punishment for misconduct or other cause. 
CrvrL APPillLLATE JuRISDIOTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 304 of 1962. 
Appeal from !he judgment and decree dated 
December l, 1958, of the Allahabad High Court 
in Civil Misc. 
Writ No. 270 of 1956. 
S. T. Desai and J.P. Goyal, for the appellant. 
0. B. Agarwala and O. P. Lal, for respondent 
No. I. 
K. S. Hajela and 0. P. Lal, for respondent 
No. 2. 
1963. April 15. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
SHAH].-. On October 18, 1954, the District 
Board, Agra resolved to terminate after giving salary 
for three months in lieu of notice, the employment 
of the appellant who held the office of Engineer 
1.1nder the .floard, and intimation in that behalf w~ 
... 
, '. 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
57 
given to him. 
An appeal perferred by the appe-
llant to the Government of U. P. against the order 
terminating his employment was 
dismissed on 
December 5, 1956. The appellant then submitted 
a petition to the High Court of Allahabad 
under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ in 
the nature of certiorari quashing 
the resolution 
passed by the Board on October 18, 1954, and the 
order dated December 5, 1956, passed by the State 
of U.P. dismissing the appellant's appeal, and a 
writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 
Board and the State of U. P. to tre

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