STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. versus SATYENDER SINGH RATHORE

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 126 · Decided: 08-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
v. 
SA TYENDER SINGH RA THO RE 
SEPTEMBER 8, 2005 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Termination Order-Interference with, justification of-Termination, 
C simplicitor or punitive-Examination of-Held: When enquiry is held and 
findings are arrived with regard to misconduct against employee, simple 
termination order is to be treated as founded on a/legations of misconduct 
and when no enquiry or findings are arrived at, it would be only• case of 
motive and termination order would be valid-Termination order against 
employee and reference made to his alleged misconduct-Employee's plea 
D that the misconduct was foundation of termination order and not motive-
High Court set aside the termination order without considering the question 
of stigma or effect of enquiiy, whether it provided motive or foundation-
Hence, interference with the termination order not justified 
E 
Respondent-employee was appointed on contractual basis. His 
services were terminated and in the termination order reference was made 
to the alleged misconduct of the employee. Employee challenged the 
termination order on the ground that the alleged misconduct was the 
foundation of the termination order. High Court held that the misconduct 
was the foundation and not the motive; and that the termination order 
F was without legal sanction. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Appellant-State contended that misconduct can be treated, as motive 
for the termination order but was not the foundation; and that in the 
termination order reference was made to the alleged misconduct of the 
employee and no inquiry was conducted or finding of guilt was arrived 
at. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. If findings are arrived at in an enquiry as to misconduct, 
behind the back of the officer or without a regular departmental enquiry, 
H 
IU 
STATEOFHARYANA v. SATYENDERS!NGHRATHORE [PASAYAT,J.] 
127 
the simple order of termination is to be treated as 'founded' on the A 
allegations and will be bad. BIJ,t if the enquiry was not held, no findings 
were arrived at and the employer was not inclined to conduct an enquiry 
but, at the same time, he did not want to continue the employee against 
whom there were complaints, the allegations would be a motive and not 
the foundation and the simple order of termination would be valid. B 
Whether termination is simpliciter or punitive has ultimately to be decided 
having due regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Many a 
time the distinction between the foundation and motive in relation to 
termination order is thin or overlapping and it is difficult to categorize 
or classify strictly the termination orders. (132-C-F] 
1.2 High Court did not consider the question of stigma or whether 
the enquiry purportedly held provided the motive or the foundation and 
its effect. Considering the facts of the case, the High Court was not justified 
in interfering with the termination order. (131-F; 132-G] 
c 
Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose, National Centre for D 
Basic Sciences, Calcutta (1999] 3 SCC 60; Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. 
Sanjay Gandhi PG/ of Medical Sciences, (2002( 1 SCC 520, relied on. 
Radhey Shyam Gupta v. UP. State Agro Industries Corpn. ltd. and Anr., 
(1999] 2 SCC 21; Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., (1974( 2 SCC 
831; Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd and Ors. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha E 
and Ors., (1980( 2 SCC 593; A. G. Benjamin v. Union of India, (1967) 1 LLJ 
718 (SC); State of Punjab v. Sukh Raj Bahadur AIR (1968) SC 1089; 
Dhananjay v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna, (2003] 2 SCC 
386 and Mathew P. Thomas v. Kera/a State Civil Supply Corporation Limited 
and Ors., [2003] 3 sec 263, referred to. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9470 of2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.2002 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 8389 of 2002. 
Manjit Singh, Harikishan Kataria and T.V. George for the Appellants. G 
Raj Kumar Gupta, Sheo Kumar Gupta, Bhanu Pratap Gupta and A.N. 
Bardiyar for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. State of Haryana and Director General, Health 
128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Services, Haryana call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a 
Division Bench of the Punjab and HaryanaJiigh Court holding that the order 
of termination passed by the authorities was without legal sanc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.