LexSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR. versus RAM KISHORE AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. A v. RAM KISHORE AND ANR. AUGUST 31, 1999 [G.T. NANAVATI AND S.N. PHUKAN,.JJ.] B Service Law: Termination of service on the basis of review of performance during temporary appointment-Respondents found absent from duty- Services terminated retrospectively-On his assurance that he would not commit mistake, fresh appointment giverr--Second appointment was temporary C subject to termination, without notice-Respondent again absenting, from duty-Services terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of his second appointmerit-Held, termination of his services not bad in law· as it was as a result of review of his performance which was found not satisfactory- Thus, the provisions of Article 311 not attracted-Constitution of India- D Article 3 I1. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Trainee Tubewell Operator. On being found absent from duty, notice was sent to him and his senl-ices were terminated retrospectively from the date he remained absent. He filed a representation against the termination order. On an assurance given by him E that he would not commit any mistake in future, fresh appointment was given to him for three months which was further extended for another three months. The second appointment was subject to the condition that his service could be terminated without any prior intimation. Thereafter, the Assistant Engineer was asked to submit a progress report on the work of respondent F No. 1 to take further course of action. Respondent No. 1 showed no improvement in his work and again absented himself from duty without any application. So his services were terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of his second appointment. Respondent No. 1 challenged both the orders of termination and the Tribunal held the termination order bad in law and quashed the termination G order. High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the State Government on the ground that no prior intimation was given to respondent No. 1 and so the termination was bad in law. Hence these appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court 149 H 150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A HELD: 1. By the second appointment letter, respondent was appointed only for a period of three months purely on temporary basis subject to termination without notice; therefore, the respondent was not in regular government service. Moreover, his position was like that of a probitationer. Since the appellant found that the services of the respondent were not B satisfactory and accordingly terminated his services, it cannot be said that the termination order was bad in law. This fact is sufficient to hold that the impugned order was an order of termination simplicitor of a temporary government servant namely the respondent Therefore, the provision of Article 311 would not be attracted. [154-D-F] C D.K Yadav v. J.MA. Industries, (1993) 3 J.T. 617 and Uptron India Ltd D v. Shammi Bhan & Anr., [1978) SCC 538, distinguished. State of UP. v. Ka'u.shal Kishore Shukla, [1991] 1SCC691, relied on. Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India, AIR (1964) 449, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4861 of 1999 Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 27.2.98 of the Allababad High Court· · E in C.M.A. No. 8 I 970 of 1997. A.K. Goel, Addi. Advocate General, U.P. and A. Misra for the Appellants. R.B. Mehrotra and Rajesh for the Respondents. F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PHUKAN, J. Delay condoned. Leave granted. Two appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated G 21.05.97ofthe High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition (C) No.7150/93 as also against the order dated 27 .02.98 in review petition "in CMA No. 81970/97. The High Court upheld the judgment and order dated 24. I 1.92 passed by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow and the review petition filed by the present appellants was also dismissed by the High Court. Respondent No. I Ram Krishna was appointed as Nalkoop Chalak w.e.f.15.5.77. As he was found H absent from his duty without obtaining leave a notice dated 26.7.79 was given - • - STATE v. RAM KISHORE [PHUKAN, J.] 151 to him and then by an order dated 6.8.79 his services were terminated with A effect from 26.7.79. Respondent filed a representation against the above order before the Authority and on an assurance given by the respondent that he would not commit any mistake in future he was given a fresh appoint
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.