STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. versus KAUSHAL KISHORE SHUKLA

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 29 · Decided: 11-01-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. 
v. 
KAUSHAL KISHORE SHUKLA 
JANUARY 11, 1991 
A 
[K.N. SINGH, N.D. ·OJHA AND P.B. SAWANT, Ji.] 
B 
Civil Services-Assistant Auditor-Ad hoc and temporary 
employee-Holding of preliminary inquiry-Does .not affect the nature 
of the termination order. 
. 
The respondent was appointed on 18.2.1977 as an Assistant 
Auditor under the Local Funds Audit Examiner of the State of U.P. on 
ad hoc temporary basis for the term fixed in the order of his appoint-
ment and his services were liable to be terminated at any time without 
assigning any reason. After his initial appointment, his services were 
extended from time to time till 28.2.1981. He was awarded an adverse 
entry in his character roll for the year 1977-78 both regarding his 
conduct as also his work. The respondent alongwith one Rajendra 
Prasad Pandey, another Sub-Auditor, were deputed to audit the 
accounts of Raja Raghbar Dayal Inter College, Sitapur in respect of the 
year 1979-80. It is alleged that while auditing the account, they acted in 
excess of their authority in as much as they audited the 'Boys Fund 
Accounts', issued· audit note and also irregularly demanded and 
collected Rs.2,000 as aduit fee, and issued receipts under their signa-
ture. On complaint a preliminary enquiry was held and the allegations 
were found to be correct. After the preliminary inquiry report, the 
respondent was relieved from his duties from Sitapur and directed to 
join his duty at Allaha~ad. Whereupon the respondent proceeded on 
leave and did not join his duty at Allahabad. The respondent's services 
were therefore terminated by order dated 23.9.1980 and by another 
order services of Pandey were also terminated. Bot~ of them riled writ 
petitions in the High Court contending that their termination orders 
were illegal having been passed in violation of Article 311 of the Con-
stitution. Whereas the writ petition ided by Pandey was dismissed, the 
one filed by the respondent was allowed. The High Court held that since 
juniors to the respondent were retained in service while the respon-
dent's services were terminated, the order of termination was dis-
criminatory in nature. The High Court further held that the order of 
termination was founded on an adverse entry awarded to the respon-
dent he11ce it was not in good faith; the punishment awarded to the 
respondent was not proportionate to the alleged offence. Against the 
29 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
D 
30 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] 1 S.C.R. 
said order, the State of U .P. fded a ·appeal after obtaining special 
leave. The question involved for consideration is whether the order 
terminating the services of the responcJent is vitiated in law? 
\ 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HEJ,D: Holding of preliminary inquiry does not affect the nature 
of the termination order. [ 42C] 
In the instant case the respondent was a temporary Government 
Servant and there was adverse regarding his work which was reflected 
in the adverse remarks made for the year 1977-78. The competent 
authority held a preliminary inquiry in regard to the allegations of 
improper conduct in carrying out unauthorised audit of Boys Fund of 
an educational institution. On result of the preliminary inquiry no 
charges were framed against the respondent, no officer was appointed 
for holding the departmental inquiry instead the competent authority 
chose to terminate the respondent's services in exercise of its powers 
under the terms of contract as well as under· the relevant rules applic-
able to a temporary Government servant. [42A-C] 
The principle 'last come first go' is applicable to a case where 
on account of reduction of work or shrinkage of cadre, retrenchment 
takes place and the services of employees are terminated on account of 
E 
retrenchment. But this principle is not applicable to a case where the 
services of a temporary employee are terminated on the assessment of 
his work and suitability in accordance with term and conditions of his 
service. On the admitted set of facts, the order of termination in the 
instant case, could not be rendered illegal or unjustified on the ground 
of juniors being retained in service. The view taken by the High Court is 
F 
not sustainable in law. [330-H] 
Appeal· allowed, High Court order set aside as it interfered with 
order of termination in a casual manner. [ 42D] 
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, [1958] S.C.R. 828; 
G 
The State of Orissa & Anr. v. Ram Narayan 

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