T. C. M. PILLAI versus INDIAN INSTITIJTE OF TECIINOLOGY, GUINDY, MADRAS

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 555 · Decided: 29-04-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

T. C. M. Pll.LAI 
v. 
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, GUINDY, 
MADRAS 
Apr~1 29, 1971 
[K. s. HEGDE AND A. N. GlOVER, JJ.] 
Institutes of Techno-logy Act, 1961-8tatute 13, cl. (9) framed under 
s. 21-Probationer-Termination of Service-Attitude or tendency displayed 
by employee valid consideration-Termination based on such considera· 
tions not punishment. 
The appellant, a scientist, was appointed to the staff of the respondent 
institute on probation. 
He had executed a bond to serve the 
Kerala 
University but this fact was never disclosed by him. He adopted an at· 
titude questioning the Rules and Regulations of the Institute as well as 
every order made by the superior authorities, he even threatened legal 
proceedings at every stage. He had barely been in the serv1~ of the 
Institute for a short time when he wanted to take up service elsewbeN. 
When the question of his confirmation came up before the Board of 
Governors it was recorded that the Board had come to know for the first 
time that while the appellant bad executed a bond to serve the Kerala 
University he did not disclose that fact when he applied to the Institute. 
This, in the opinion of the Board was "serious transgression of well known 
convention and etiquette". The Board, after considering all the aspects 
and perusing the confidential reports came to the conclusion that it would 
not be desirable in the interest of the Institute to retain the services of 
the appellant. It was therefore resolved that his services be terminated 
with a month's notice in terms of the order of appointment. The appel-
lant filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the 
order of termination. He relied on cl. 9 of Statute 13 framed under s. 27 
of the Institutes of Technology Act, 1!161 which provided that no order 
imposing any penalty shall be passed without giving a reasonable 
op-
portunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in 
regard to a member of the staff. The High Court held that !i.lthough 
the Board of Gq_vernors took note of the fac;t that the appellant had 
committed a breach of a Covenant with the Keiala Government and that 
he had insisted on certain benefits which he was not entitled to it could 
not be said that his services bad been terminated by way of punishment. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : A probationer or a temporary servant can be discharged 
if it is found that he is not suitable for the post which he is holding. 
Suitability does not depend merely on the excellence or proficiency in 
work. A particular attitude or tendency displayed by an employee can 
well influence the decision of the confirming authority while judging his 
suitability or fitness for confirmation. In the present case, if the Institute 
thought that a person of the appellant's type would not be suitable for 
being confirmed as a member of the staff of the Institute the order dis· 
pensing with his services could not be regarded as penal action taken 
with the object of inflicting punishment. [559H-560B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE IURISDICI10N : Civil Appeal No. 2263 of 
1968. 
5 55'· 
A 
c 
E 
G 
H 
.55& 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1971] SUPP. S.C.R. 
A. 
Appeal from the judgment and order da'ted August 4, 1964 
B 
D 
E 
H 
of the Madrat; High <;ourt in Writ Appeal No. 337 of 1963. 
M. C. Chagla and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant. 
' 
S. T. Desai, C. N. S. Chengalverayan and A. V. Rangam, 
for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Grover, J.--Th~'> is an appeal by certificate from a judge-
ment of a division bench. of the Madras High Court affirming 
the decision of a learned single judge rejecting the petition filed 
by the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash an 
order passed by the respondent Instituffi on April 26, 1963 which 
had the effect of terminating his serVices. 
The appella·nt had a distinguished academic career. 
After 
P.assing the Master's degree in Organic Chemistry from the Luck~ 
now University he obtained a Doctorate from the Royal School 
of Mining of the lJniversity of London. He· got a Post Graduate 
Diploma from the ,Imperial College of Science and Technology, 
London. He worked for' sometime a,nd was employed successively 
in some of the Universities in the United States Qf America. 
Since the year 1960 the appellant had been making efforts to 
get employment in the respondent Institute. 
This Institute is 
one of the four Institutes of Science and Technol

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