STATE OF U.P. versus RAM CHANDRA TRIVEDI

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 462 · Decided: 01-09-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 19 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
462 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
RAM CHANDRA TRIVEDI 
September I, 1976 
[ H. R. KHANNA, R. S. SARKARIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.]. 
Practice-Duty of High Court when there is confiic~ between decision.o of the 
Supreme Court-Upsettinf! concurrent findin!JS of fact in second appeal-
Propriety. 
Constitution of India, 1950 Art. 311-Termlnation of services of temporary 
C 
servam-Protection of article when applicable. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The respondent was appointed as a temporary clerk 
in 
an engineering 
::fivision of the Government. The attempt of another clerk to impersonate an:! 
appear for him in a departmental examination was 
detected. 
The Executive 
Engineer obtained explanations from both the clerks and reported the ·matter to 
the Superintending Engineer, who brought the matter to the notice of the Chief 
Engineer. 
The Chief Engineer wrote to the Superintending Engineer to award 
suitable punishment. The Superintending Engineer passed the order that · the 
respondent a "temporary clerk is hereby served with one month's notice to 
the effect that his services shall not be required after one month from the 
date of receipt of this notice." The respondent filed a suit challenging the 
order on 
the 
ground 
that 
the 
termination 
was 
one 
passed 
by 
way 
of punishment 
and 
therefore 
attracted Art. 
311 
of the 
Constitution; 
and 
since 
the 
provisions 
of 
tha 
Article 
had 
not 
been 
complied 
with the order was void. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed 
the suit. 
But the High Court went through the official correspondence preceding 
the passing of the impugned order, and o~rving that a close scrut'ny of the 
feels on record showed that the order was passed by way of r punishment on the 
basis of the enquiry proceeding and as a result of the recommendation by the 
Executive Engineer followed by the direction issued by Chief Engineer, allowed 
the second appeal. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : (!) It is no longer open to any ohe to urge that the cons'tutional 
position in regard to cases of the present nature is not clear. An examination of 
the decisions of this Court shows that there is no real conflict in their ratio 
decidendi. Even if there is a conflict, the proper course for a High Court i~ to 
find out and follow the opinion expressed by larger benches of this Court in pre. 
ference to those expressed by smaller benches of this Court. This practice is 
followed by thi; Court itself and has hardened into a rule of law. 
[475B-C] 
Union of India & A nr. v. K. S. Subramanian, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 87, follow-
ed. 
. 
. 
State of U.P. & Ors v. Sughw Singh [1974] 2 S.C.R. 335: (1974) 1 S.C.C. 
218, The State of Punjab< v. P.S. Cheema A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1096, Satish Chandra 
Anand v. The Union of India [1953] S.C.R. 655, Shyam I.al v. State of U.P. 
[1955] 1 S.C.R. 26, Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union <Yf India [1958] S.C.R. 828, 
Gopi Kishore Praso<J v. Union of India A.LR. 
1960 S.C. 
689, The State of 
Oris.rn & Anr. v. Ram Narayan Das [1961] I S.C.R. 606, Madan Gopa/ v. State of 
Punjab [1963] 3 S.C.R. 716, Rajendra Chandra Banerjee v. Union of India 
[1964] 2 S C.R. 135, Champc1klal Chimanfal Shah v. The Union of India [1964] 
3 S.C.R. 190, Jagdlsh Mitter v. Union of India A.I.R. 1%4 S.C. 449, State of 
Punjab & Anr. v. Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur [1968] 3 S.C.R, 234, Union of India 
U.P. v. RAM CHANDRA TRIVEDI (Jaswant Singh, J.) 
463 
& Ors. v. R. S. Dhaba (1969] 3 S.C.C. 603. State of Bihar & Ors. v. Shiva 
A 
BJUkshuk Mishra (1971] 2 S.C.R. 191, R. S. Sir.ti v. The State of U.P. & Or~. 
[1974] 3 S.C.R. 754, Shamsher Singh & Anr. v. State of Puniab [1975] 1 S.C.R. 
814 and The Regional Manager & Anr. v. Pawan Kumar Dubey [1976] 3 S.C.R. 
540. referred to. 
'(2) Before it is held that an order terminating the services of a Government 
servant amounts tQ punishment the Court must hold that either of the two 
tests, namely, (a) that the servant had, a right to the pdst or (b) that h.e had 
B 
been visited with evil consequences such as forfeiture of pay etc., is satisfied. 
Therefore, an order terminating the services of a temporary servant or proba, 
tioner under the Rules of employment and without anything more will not 
attract Art. 311. Where a departmental enquiry is. contemplated but an enquiry 
is not in fact proceeded with, Art. 311 will not be attracted unless it can be 
shown that the order, though unexceptionable in form, is ma<le foJliowing a 
report based on misconduct. 
Eve
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.