STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. versus PREM LATA MISRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 613 · Decided: 21-04-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
Km. PREM LATA MISRA AND ORS. 
APRIL 21, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
B 
• 
Constitution of India 1950 : 
Articles 14, 16(1) and 311(2}-Temporary appointment-Termination 
of by giving one month's pay and allowances in lieu of one month's notice c 
in terms of order of appointment and rules-Held, termination valid. 
Service Law : 
U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 
1975-0rder terminating services of temporary Government servant-Whether D 
misconduct is the foundation or motive-Held, where misconduct is the 
foundation for the order an inquiry is necessary, but where it is the motive it 
is not incumbent to have an inquiry. 
The order appointing the respondent to an ex-cadre temporary post 
of Asst. Project Officer under the National Adult Education Scheme of the E 
Govt. of U.P. indicated that her services would be terminated at any time 
by giving one month's notice or one month's pay. Her ~ervices were 
terminated in exercise of the power under Termination of Services U.P. 
Govt. Temporary Govt. Services Rules, 1975 giving one month's pay in lieu 
of notice. The High Court while allowing the Respondent's Writ Petition 
directed her reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The Govt. was F 
• 
given the liberty to conduct an enquiry, if it so desired in accordance with 
rules. Against this order, State preferred the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The termination of services of the respondent is for her G 
unsuitability or unfitness but not by way of pnnishment as a punitive 
measure and one in terms of the o'der appointment and also the Rules. 
Two higher officers have submitted their reports concerning the perfor-
mance of the duties by the respondent. She was regularly irregular in her 
.~ 
duties, insubordination and left the office during office hours with out 
permission etc. On consideration thereof, the competent authority found H 
613 
614 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 
A that the respondent was not fit to be continned in service as her work and 
conduct were unsatisfactory. (617-A-B) 
State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, [1991] 1 SCC 691, relied on. 
2. The court can lift the veil of the innocuous order to find whether 
B misconduct is the foundation or motive to pass the offending order. If 
misconduct is the foundation for passing the order then an inquiry into 
misconduct should be conducted and an action according to law should 
follow. But if it is motive, it is not incumbent upon the competent officer 
to have an enquiry conducted and the service of a temporary employee 
could be terminated, in terms of the order of appointment or rules giving 
c one month's notice or pay salary in lieu thereof. Even if an enquiry was 
initiated, it could be dropped midway and action could be taken in terms 
of the rules or order of appointment. [616-E-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4075 of 
1994. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.92 of the Allahabad High 
Court Court in W/P. No. 7524 of 1988. 
D.V. Sehgal and R.B. Misra for the Appellants. 
E 
Arvind Verma and S.Murlidhar for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. Leave granted. 
F 
This appeal, by special leave, is from the order of the ·Division Bench 
of the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench in W.P. No. 7524/88, 
dated November 27, 1992. The respondent was temporarily appointed as 
Assistant Project Officer by the proceedings dated May 20, 1980. The order 
·of appointment recites that she was appointed to an ex-cadre temporary 
post of Asst!. Project Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1950 by direct 
G recruitment through Departmental Selection Committee under National 
Adult Education Scheme. The appointment order also shows that her 
appointment is a temporary one from the date of the joining the duty and 
it would be terminated "at any time by giving one month's notice or one 
month's pay'. The ;uperior officers have reported on two occasion, first on 
April 21, 1982 and secondly on May 18, 1982 informing the competent 
H authority of the unsatisfactory work of the respondent. In consequence, by 
• 
+• 
STATE OFU.P. v. P.L. MISRA (Km,) 
615 
order dated June 8, 1982, exercising the power under Termination of A 
Services U.P. Govt. Temporary Govt. Service Rules, 1975, The service of 
the respondent was terminated giving one month pay and allowances in 
li

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