UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SHRI BIHARI LAL SIDHANA

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 364 · Decided: 25-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
SHRI BIHARI LAL SIDHANA 
MARCH 25, 1997 
.[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Central Civil Services (Temporwy Se1vice) Rules, 1965 : 
Rule 5( 1)-Temiination-Delhi Milk Scheme-Cash cler~Mis-ap­
propriation of funds by on more than one occasion-Prosecution launched--
Employee placed under suspension-Pending prosecution, temiination order 
passed-Employee acquitted in criminal case--Writ petition claiming 
D reinstatement-Single Judge of High Court dismissed the claim-Division 
Bench reversed the judgment holding that order of removal indicated that it 
was temiination with stigma attached by mentioning (under suspension)-But 
instead of reinstating the employee, it directed the employer to pay him Rs. 
2.50 lakhs as compensation-Held, acquittal of Govemment employee does 
E not automatically entitle him to reinstatement-Employee being a temporary 
Govemment servant, power under JUie 5 ( 1) could be invoked instead of 
conducting an inquily-High Court erred in directing payment of compensa-
tion--Order of Division Bench of High Cowt set aside and that of Single 
Judge restored. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2668 of 
G 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.9.96 of the Delhi High Court 
in L.P .A. 215 of 1979. 
V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Sushma Manchanda 
and D.S. Mehra for the Appellants. 
Gurmeet Singh for the Respondent. 
H 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
364 
U.O.l. v. B.L. SIDHANA 
365 
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
A 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the 
Division Bench, made on September 12, 1996 in L.P.A. No. 215/1979 by 
the Delhi High Court. While the respondent was working as a Cash 
Clerk in Delhi Milk Scheme, temporary mis-appropriation of the funds B 
on more than one occasion was discovered. When misappropriation of 
Rs. 17,744.91 on April 2, 1972 was reported, a prosecution was laid 
against the respondent. While the prosecution was pending, orders were 
passed by the competent authority on April 24, 1972 as under : 
"In pursuance of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the C 
Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, I hereby 
terminate forthwith the services of Shri B.L. Sidhana, Cash 
Clerk (under suspension), Delhi Milk Sclieme and direct that 
he shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of pay and 
allowances for a period of one month (in lieu of the period of D 
notice) was drawing them immediately before the date on which 
he was drawing them immediately before the date on which he 
was placed under suspension." 
The respondent was acquitted of the charge in the criminal case E 
and therefore, he filed a writ petition. In his order, the learned single 
Judge held thus : 
"The petition of the Cash Clerk is one of confidence and respon-
sibility. Even if the incidents averred against the petitioner were 
F 
not proved, they were such, as to lead a prudent employer to 
terminate the services of the employee on the ground of his, not 
being desirable. The order of termination was passed, as noticed 
above, one year after the criminal case had started and two years 
after the enquiry. The enquiry appears not to have been com-
pleted, so, uo definite opinion had been arrived as with regard G 
to the guilt of the petitioner. No evil consequences were visited 
on the petition as a result of the order of termination. Nor has 
any stigma been attached. No penalties were inflicted on the 
petitioner despite the enquiries, and the start of the criminal 
case. In the circumstances the order of termination simpliciter H 
366 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 
is valid. Since the order is innocuous, there is no need to peer 
behind it, unless malafides had been established." 
On appeal, the Division Bench reversed it, holding that the order 
of removal does indicate that it was termination of the services of the 
respondent with stigma attached by mentioning (under suspension). 
Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 
was exercised with stigma attached in the order. The order does indicate 
that he was under suspension. It postulates that it was by way of a 
misconduct and thereby without conducting the enquiry, the termination 
of the service of the respondent was illegal. Consequently, instead of 
C reinstating him into service the Court directed the appellate-employer 
to

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