STATE OF PUNJAB& ANR. versus SHRI SUKH RAJ BAHADUR

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 234 · Decided: 22-02-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STA'll!: OF PUNJAB a AN1L 
p, 
SHRI SlJKH RA1 BAii;\ DUR 
February 22, 1968 
[], C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND G. K. MiTTEll; 11:] 
Civil Service-Completion of probation-If probationer •ntltld to tub-· 
stanllve oppointment-Reversiun to sub.rtanti•• par,,__Whon O/J!Utllts "' 
punishment. 
· 
The respondent who was a permanent oJ!icial in the Delhi Administra· 
lion was appointed to the Punjab Civil Service (I!Xecutive Blanch). He 
was on probation in the new post for a period of 18 mootba mbject to ex· 
tension of the period and subject to his completing training; He passed all 
the departmental examinations. The periDd of probation expired in 1uly 
1954, and there was no i;xtension of it. In January 1957, he received a 
charge-oheet with a Jetter from the Anti-Corruption Department liskin1!: him 
to reply to the charge sheet and to state whether he would like to be lioard 
in person. 'The respondent replied that he wanted an opportunity of being 
heard in person. There was however no enquiry at all, and much later, by 
an order dated 23/26th May 1958, the Punjab Government reverted him 
to his substantive post in the Delhi. Administration without making any 
reference to the charges. 
The respondent thereupon challenged the order on the grounds namely : 
( 1) that on the expiry of the period of probation and on his passing the 
departtnental exarilinations he became entitled to a substantive permanent 
appointment; (2) that the impugned order terminated his servioe under 
the Punjab Government and removed him from the said service, in viola• 
tion of the provisions of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution; and (3) under 
r. 9 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishinent and Appeal) RUies, 1952, 
it was mandatory that, before his employment as a probationer could. be 
terminated, he should have been apprised of the grounds of the proposed 
termination and given an opportUnity to show cause against it. 
The High Court accepted the second contention and allowed the petition. 
In appeal to thiS Court, 
HELD : (1) Merely because the respondent had passed all the depart· 
mental examinations and completed the period of probation fixed, ho could 
not be considered to be holding the post substantively, or as being entitled 
to it. [239 E-FJ 
• 
c 
D 
F 
(2) The J'OllpODdent could not complain· againat the order reverting 
G 
him to his form..- post because, the order of reversion was not by way 
of puni5h!nent. [239 Fl 
The cil'cwmtante$ preceding or attendant on the order of termination 
of service of a public servant have to be examined in each case, for deter· 
mining whether the order was by way of punishment. The mot!\" behind 
it is immaterial. It is only in a case wliether either of the two 
tests, 
namely, (a) ,Whether the public servant had a right to the post or rank, 
or (b) wbedier the public servant, no matter whether he WD a pi;obationer 
R 
or a temporary llOl'Vilnt, has been visited with evil' consequences.· or ·an 
aspersion baa been cast ·on his character or integrity, that the order could 
be il8id to be by way of' punishment. BiJt· !lie serviCes of a· temporacy 
• . 
A 
B 
c 
0 
E 
p 
G 
B 
PUNJAB v. SUXH llAJ (Mitter, 1.) 
235 
servant or :a probationer can be terminated under the rules of his employ-
ment and such termination without anything more, \\ill not attract the 
operation of Art. 311. [240 A; 244 A-B, C.D] 
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, (1958] S.C.R. 828, State of 
Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das, [1961] 1 S.C.R. 606, R. C. Lac,y v. State of 
Bihar, C.A. No. 590 of 1962 dated 23-10,63, A G. Benjamin v. Union of 
lndi<.·, CA. No. 1341/66 decided on 13-12-66, followed. 
Madan Gopal v. State of Punjcb, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 716, State of Bihar v. 
Gopi Kishore Prasad, A.l.R. 1960 S.C. 689 and Jagdish Mitter v. Union 
of India. A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 449, referred to . .. 
(3) As the High Court had not considered the contention of the res-
pondent based on r. 9 of the Punjab Qvil Services (Punishment and 
Appeal) Ruks, J 952, the matter should be remanded to the High Court 
for consideration of that question. [244 HJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 433 of 
1965. 
Appeal from the iudgment and order dated January 7, 1963 
of the, Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 157 of 
1957. 
Vikram Chand Mahajan, R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayar, 
for the appellants . 
Sardar Bahadur, Arub B. Saharya, Vishnu B. Saharya and 
Youginder Khushalani, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the C2urt was delivere

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