A
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
v.
SMT. KAMLA DEVI AND ANR.
MAY 9, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.j
c
Service Law :
U.P. Temporary Government Services Rules, 1975.
R. 14(a}-Employee appointed on ad hoc basis-Frequent absence
from du~Services tenninated in tenns of appointment lettei--Claim for
reinstatement and back wages-Tribunal setting aside order of tennination
holding the same as violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution-Held,
when Government exercised statuto1y power, need to conduct inquiry as
D contemplated under Article 311(2) by necessary implication got obviated.
Constitution of India, 1950.
Article 311(2}-Temiination of services of temporary employee without
inquiry>-Govemment of U.P. tenninating services of employee appointed on
E ad hoc basis, exercising power under Rule 14(a) of U.P. Temporary Govem-
ment Services Rules, 197~Held, in view of exercise of statutory power, order
of tennination is not violative of Article 311(2).
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.
8996/1996.
From the Judgment and order of the 5.4.1994 of the Allahabad High
Court in W.P. 1589(SS) of 1994.
lrshad Ahmad from the Appellants.
G
Pravir Choudhary for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
H
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
644
•
STATE v. KAMLADEVI
645
Though the respondent was appointed on February 14, 1972 on ad A
hoc basis, she was posted at different places during which period she
remained either on leave or alJsconded from duty, except joining the places
nearer to her native place Lakhimpur Kheri. Consequently, authorities had
taken action on September 23, 1980 to terminate her service in terms of
letter of appointment. The respondent had approached the Tribunal for
reinstatement with back wages. The Tribunal has set aside the order of ll
termination holding that the termination is violative of Article 311(2) of the
Constitution since no enquiry was conducted against the respondent. The
same came to be upheld by the High Court in the impugned order in Writ
Petition No. 1589(SS)/94 passed on April 5, 1994.
c
The question, therefore, is : whether it is necessary for the Govern-
ment to conduct an enquiry as contemplated under Article 311(2) read
with the statutory rules? In the State of U.P., there are statutory rules, viz.,
U.P. Temporary Government Services Rules, J.975. Rule 14(a) of the said
Rules provides for termination of the service of temporary Government
servant either with one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof.
D
Under the.sc circumstances, when the Government exercised the
statutory power, the need to conduct enquiry as contemplated under
Article 311(2) by necessary implication got obviated. The High Court,
therefore, was wrong in holding that the enquiry under Article 311(2)
E
needs to be conducted to terminate the services of even the temporary
Government servant.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. However, any salary paid to the
respondent during the continuance in services pursuant to the interim
direction would not be recovered from her. There 'viii be no order as to F
costs.
R.P.
Appeal allowed.
Lex