UNION TERRITORY OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA versus GOPAL CHANDER DUTTA CHOUDHURY

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 266 · Decided: 25-09-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1962 
11.SWant Sugar Mills 
Lli., Medrut 
v. 
Lakshmicha nd 
Shah, J, 
1962 
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
Both the appeals therefore fail and are dismis-
sed with costs. 
There will be one hearing fee. 
A ppools dismissed. 
UNION TERRITORY OF TRIPURA, 
AGARTALA 
v. 
GOPAL CHANDER DUTTA CHOUDHURY 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAG.ADKAR, 
K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and 
J. c: SHAH, JJ.) 
Public Servant-Temporary employment-Termination of 
service-Appeal 
dismiss~An ex-convict for theft-Whether 
ttrmination amounted to dismissal-Scope of enquiry-If same 
a.o in Iudustrial Dispute-Central Services (Temporary Service) 
Ruks, 1949, r.5-0onstiti.ttion of Iudia, Art. 311. 
The respondent was appointed as a constable in the 
Tripura Police Force. The employment was te!llporary. In 
accordance with r. 5 of the Central Services (Temporary 
Service) Rules, 1949, his services were terminated by giving one 
month's notice. The respondent appealea. The Appellate 
Authority wrote to him that as he was an ex-convict for theft 
nothing could be done for him. The respondent filed: a writ 
petition challenging the order of termination. The Judicial 
"ommissioner held that the order was one of dismissal as 
punishment on the ground that the respondent was an "ex-
convict" and that as no reasonable opportunity was given to the 
respondent to show cause, the protection of Art. 311 was 
not afforded to him and the order ·tenninating the respondents 
employment was invalid. 
Held, that the respondent had r.ot been dismissed by way 
of punishment and there was· no violation of Art. 311(2). 'The 
order in terms merely terminated the service of the responiient; 
there was nothing in it to suggest that -the termination was on 
account of the respondent being an "ex-convict". It could 11ot 
be in the circumatanceo of this case inferred that an ~ 
of 
1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
267 
dismissal was camouflaged as an order of termination. It can-
not be assumed that an order ex·facie one of termination was 
intended to be one of dismissal. The onus to prove such inten-
tion lies upon the employee. 
P'Urshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, [1958] S.C.R. 
828 and Satish Chander Anand v. Union of India, [1953] S.C.R. 
655, referred to. 
Held, further, that a court considering the validity of an 
order of termination or dismissal of a public servant is not 
required to investigate into the matter in the same way as 
an Industrial Tribunal is when considering an application 
under s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court 
has mercllit to see whether the protection prescribed by Art. 311 
and the mies made ·under Art. 309 has been denied to the 
public servant. There is no similarity between an enquiry 
under s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act and an enquiry by the 
court when an order of dismissal of a public servant is 
challenged. 
Chartered Bank, Bombay v. Chartered Bank Employeis 
Union, [1960] 3 S.C.R. 441, The Management ofChandrama"/ai 
Estate, Ernak'U"/am v. Its Workmen, [1960] 3 S.C.R. 451 and 
Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1960] 1 S.C.R. 
806, referred to 
Crvn. APPELLA'rE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 581 of 1961. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated 
January 15, 1960, of the Judicial Commissioner's 
court, Tripura at Agartala in Civil Misc. (Writ 
Petition) No. 4 of 1959. 
R. Ganapathy Iyer and P. D. Menon, for the 
appellants. 
D. P. Singh, for the respondent. 
1962. September 25. 
The Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
SHAH, ].-This is an appeal with a certificate 
granted by the Judicial Commissioner of Tripura 
under Art. 132(1) of the Constitution. 
Gopal Chander. Dutta 
Choudhury-herein-
after referred to as 'the respondent'-was ap;iointed 
1962 
Union Territory of 
Tripura, Agartala 
v. 
Gopal Chander 
Duttf.l Choudhury 
S/Ja/r, J. 
1962 
Unfon Territory of 
'Tripura, Agartala 
v. 
Gopal Chander 
Dut!a Choudhury 
Shah, .!. 
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
a constable in the Police Force of Tripura by the 
Superintendent of Police, 
Agartala by order dated 
April 18, l!l54. 
The employment was temporary 
and was liable to be terminated with one month's 
~oticc. On December 6, 1957, the Superintendent 
of Police, acting under r. 5 of the Central Services 
(Temporary Service) Rules, 
19·+9, informed the 
respondent that his services "will be terminated with 
effect from 6-1.-58 A. M." The respondent presented 
an appeal to the Chief Commissioner against the 
order
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.