STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus BHOOP SINGH VERMA

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1126 · Decided: 24-01-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASWANT SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
" 
E 
F 
G 
u 
1126 
STATE OF. UTTAR PRADESH 
v. 
BHOOP SINGH VERMA 
January 24, 1979 
[JASWANT SINGH, R. S. PATHAK AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
Termination of simpUciter-No 1departmental enquiry is necessary under 
law in such cases. 
The respondent was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of police in a temporary 
pool in 1955. 
He was discharged from service on July 13, 1957. 
A Writ 
Petition filed by him in the Allahabad High Court was allowed on August 4, 
1959 and consequently he was re-instated in service on December 15, 1959. 
Thereafter, on January 21, 1960 his services were .terminated on the ground 
that they were no longer required by the State. A suit for declaration that 
the said order of termination was null and void was decreed in his favour 
by the trial court which was affirmed in. appeal and also by the High Court 
in second appeal. 
Allowing the State appead. by special leave the Court, 
HELD : 1. The considerations which prevailed with tho High Court in 
reaching its findings on the application of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution 
nnd the bona {ides of the superior authority in making the impugned order of 
tern1ination simpliciter are not warranted in law. 
[1130D1 
2. The order terminating the services wa-; an order of termination simpli-
citer passed in accordance with the rules applicable to temporary Government 
servants. 
After the original ,order of ,discharge was quashed by the High 
Court, the respondent was reinstated, alJowed increment in 
pay 
and 
one 
month's salary in lieu of notice under the 'general rules for termination of 
services of temporary government serva-nts was also given. 
[1128F-G] 
3. It 1'1as open to the superior authority to 
terminate the 
respondent's 
services on the ground on which it did so. And the eyidence disclosed no 
personal motive had influenced the order or th&t it was passed by way of 
punishment. A departmenta) enquiry is not required under the law. Instead 
of· instituting disciplinary proceedings against the government 
servant, 
the 
suitability for retention in service could be decided. 
[ll28H, 1129A, El 
State vf U.P. v. Ram Chandra Trivedi', [1977] 1 SCR 462; Chan1pakTal Chi-
manlal SIFJh v. The Union of India, [1964] 5 SCR 190, 
Jagdis!z Mitter v. 
Union of India, A.l.R. 1964 S.C. 449 and State of Puniab & Anr. v. Shri Sukh 
llai Bahadur, [1968] 3 SCR 234; referred to. 
Union of India & Ors. v. R. S. Dhaba, (1969] 3 SCC 603, Stme df Bihar 
& Ors. v. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra [1971] 2 SCR 191 and R. S. Sial v. 
Th• 
State of U.P. and Ors., [1974] 3 SCR 754; applied. 
The State of Hihar v. Gopi Kishore Prasad, A.l.R. 
1960 
SC 689 
and 
. Madan Gopal v. The State of Punjab, (1963] 3 SCR 716; distinguished. 
_J 
+ 
' 
. _,._ -
' " 
U. P. STATE v. BHOOP SINGH (Pathak, J.) 
1127 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 252 of 1969. 
A 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order 
dated 
19-8-68 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Appeal No. 254/65. 
G. N. Dikshit and M. V. Goswami for the Appellant. 
S. C. Manchanda, S. C. Patel and Trilok Singh Arora for the Res-
pondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was deliver,ed by 
PATHAK, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated August 19, 
1968 dismissing a second appeal arising out of a suit for declaration. 
The respondent was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police in a 
temporary post in 1955. He was discharged from service on July 13, 
1957. A writ petition filed by him in the Allahabad High Court was 
allowed on August 4, 1959, a'nd accordingly on December 15, 1959 
he was reinstated in service. 
Thereafter, on January 21, 1960 his 
services were terminated by the Deputy lnspector General o[ Police, 
Agra Ran~, Agra. 
On March 13, 1963 the respondent instituted· a suit for a declara-
tion that the order dated January 21, 1960 was illegal and void and 
that he continued as Sub-Inspector of Police in the Uttar Pradesh 
Polio.e Service. It was alle~d that on a false complaint made against 
him in respect of the custody and detention of one Smt. Phoolmati, 
an enquiry bad been made in cohsequence of which the appellant 
had been arbitrarily and illegally discharged from service on July 13, 
1957. It was pleaded that although he was reinstated .on the success 
.of his writ petition in the High Court, his services were tenninated 
a mere five weeks later although no ground had arisen since for doing 
so. It was asserted that the order
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.