STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. versus VIJAY SHANKER TRIPATHI

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 749 · Decided: 20-07-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

ST A TE OF UTT AR PRADESH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
VIJA Y SHANKER TRIPATHI 
JULY 20, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 3J/(2): 
c 
Termination of services of an employee by employer without following 
the due procedure as indicated under Article 311(2)-Legality of termination 
order-Challenge to-Dismissed by Tribunal holding that the order of 
termination was a terminator simpliciter and Article 311(2) not attracted-
Reversed by High Court-On appeal, Held: The question whether enquiry D 
purportedly held before passing termination order was motive or the 
f oondation was required to be considered by the High Court-Since High ' 
Court failed to express any opinion on the merits of the case, the matter is 
remitted to High Court for consideration afresh. 
The services of the respondent were terminated after serving him notice E 
as his services were no longer required. Such termination was questioned 
before the State Public Service Tribu~al. The claim was dismissed by the 
Tribunal holding that the order of termination was a termination simpliciter 
and no stigma was attached and that Article 311 (2) of the Constitution was 
not attracted. The order was challenged by the employee. The High Court set 
aside the order of termination on the ground that Article 311(2) of the F 
Constitution is required to be followed even while terminating the services of 
a temporary Government employee. Hence the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
Held: The High court did not consider the question of stigma or the G 
effect of any enquiry held before the order of termination was passed. The 
question whether the enquiry purportedly held was the motive or the 
foundation was required to be considered by the High Court in detail. The 
Order of the High Court is without expressing any opinion on the merits of 
749 
H 
750 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A the case, hence set. aside and remitted to the High Court for fr~sh 
consideration. [751-D, F] 
Dhananjay v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jaina, (2003] 2 
SCC 386; Mathew P. Thomas v. Kera/a State Civil supply Corporation 
Limited and Ors., [2003] 3 SCC 263; Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra 
B Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta [1999) 3 SCC 60 
and Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PG/ of Medical Sciences, 
(2002] 1 sec 520, referred to. 
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5242 of2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.11.99 of the Allahabad High· Court 
in C.M.W.P. No. 28767 ofl998. 
Mrs. Alka Agrawal, Garvesh Kabra and Ravi Prakash Mehrotra for the 
Appellants. 
D 
Yatish Mohan and VishwajirSingh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
E 
The service of the respondent was terminated by an order dated 
16.08.1988. It was indicated that his services were no longer required and, 
therefore, notice was given with the requisite one month pay and allowance. 
Such termination was questioned before the State Public Service Tribunal, 
Uttar Pradesh (in short 'the Tribunal'). The Claim petition No. 337N/89 was 
F _dismissed holding that the order of termination was a termination simpliciter 
and no stigma was attached. It was found that there were certain allegations 
and the respondent-employee had more or less accepted the allegations. The 
order of termination was, therefore, neither attached with any stigma nor was 
visited by any punitive character. Accordingly, it was held that Article 311(2) 
of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution') was 
not 
G attracted. The respondent-employee filed a writ petition only on the ground 
that Article 311(2) of the Constitution was required to be followed in the case 
of temporary government servants. High Court was of the view that Article 
311 (2) is required to be followed even in case of temporary Government 
employees. Accordingly, the order of termination was set aside and the writ 
H petition was allowed. 
STATEOFU.P. v. VIJAYSHANKERTRIPATHL[PASAYAT,J.] 
751 
In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-State and its A 
functionaries submitted that the basic issue before the High Court was whether 
the order of termination was a termination simpliciter or there was any stigma 
attached. There is no quarrel to the proposition that Article 311 (2) is attracted 
to temporary government s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.