THE STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER versus RAM NARAYAN DAS

Citation: [1961] 1 S.C.R. 606 · Decided: 08-09-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SefJfrmbtr 8, 
606 
SUPRSME COlJRT REPORTS 
[Hl61] 
THE STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER 
v. 
RAM NARAYAN DAS 
(S. K. DAS, M. HIDAYATULLAR, K. c. DAS GUPTA, 
J. C. SHAH and N. RAJAOOPALA AYYANOAR, JJ.) 
Pttblic sen·ant-P.rob<llioner S11b·l>1sj•cclor-Discharge 'from 
sert•ice for unsatisfactory u·ork and conduct-If amor•nfs to dismis-
sal-Constil11tio11 of India, Art. 3rr(2). 
The respondent was appointed·a Sub-Inspector on probation 
in the Orissa Police Force. A notice was served on him to show 
cause why he should not be discharged from service ·• for gross 
neglect of duties and unsatisfactory work". He submitted his 
explanation and asked for opportunity to cross-examine certain 
witnesses. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police considered 
the explanation unsatisfactory and passed an order discharging 
the respondent from service "for unsatisfactory work and con-
duct". The respondent contended that tl1e order was invalid 
on two grounds: (i) that he was not gh·cn a reasonable opportu-
nity to show cause against the proposed action within the 
meaning of Art. 311(2), and (ii) that he was not afforded an 
opportunity to be heard nor was any evidence taken on the 
charges. 
Held, that the order of discharge did not amount to dismis-
sal and did not attract the protection of Art. 311(2) of the Cons-
titution and was a valid order. 
The sen·iccs of the respondent, 
who was a probationer, were terminated in accordance with the 
rules and not by way of punishment. 
He had no right to the 
post held by him and under the terms of his appointment he 
was liable to be discharged at any time during the period of his 
probation. The notice given to the respondent was under Rule 
55-B of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) 
Rules which made it obligatory to give such notice before 
terminating the services of a probationer. The enquiry was 
merely for ascertaining whether he was fit to be confirmed. 
Shyam Lal v. The Stale of U. P., [1955) I S.C.R. 26 and 
Purshcttam Lal Dhingra ".· U11ion of India, [1958] S.C.R. 828, 
referred to. 
, 
Stale of Bihar v. Gopi Kishore Prasad, A.l.R. 196o S.C. 689, 
distinguished. 
· 
CIVIL APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 61/1959. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order datiid December 4, 1957, of the Orissa High 
Court in O.J.C. No. 449 of 1956. 
' . 
• 
\. 
1 S.C.R: SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
607 
0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor.General of India, D. N. 
r960 
Mukherjee and T. M. Sen, for the appellants. 
The State of 
Orissa & Another 
The respondent did not appear. 
v. 
1960. September 8. 
The Judgment of the Court Ram Na1·ayan Das 
was delivered by 
· 
SHAH J.-The respondent was appointed in the 
year 1950 a Sub-Inspector on probation in the Orissa 
Police force. In view of the adverse reports received 
against him on July 28, 1954, notice was served on the 
respondent calling upon him to show cause why he 
should not be discharged from service " for gross 
neglect of"duties and unsatisfactory work". In the 
notice, ten specific instances of neglect of duty and two 
instances of misconduct-acceptance of illegal grati-
fication and fabrication of official record were set out. 
By his explanation, the respondent submitted that 
action had already been taken against him. by the 
Superintendent of Police in respect of instances of 
neglect of duty set out in the notice and no further 
action in respect thereof could on that account be 
taken against him, because to do so would amount to 
imposing double punishment. He denied the charge 
relat.ing to misconduct and submitted that it was 
based on the uncorroborated .statements of witnesses 
who were inimical to him. He also asked for an 
opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses. 
The 
Deputy Inspector General of Police considered the 
explanation and observed: 
"I have carefully gone through the representation 
of the probationary S. I. His argument that he has 
already been punished by the S. P. for specific instan-
ces of bad work does not help him very much since 
all these instances of bad work during the period of 
probation have to be taken together in considering 
his merits for confirmation or otherwise. The S. I. 
has already had long enough of chance to work under 
different S. Ps. though in one District, but he has not 
been able to procure a good chit from anyone. He 
has also been adversely reported against after the 
representation dealt with therein was submitted. It 
Shah ]. 
608 
SUPREME COUR'1

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