AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Supreme Court Judgments


Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2018

Subscribe

RSS Feed img




State of U.P.& Ors Vs. Smt. Kamia Devi & Anr [1996] INSC 704 (9 May 1996)

Ramaswamy, K.Ramaswamy, K.Faizan Uddin (J) G.B. Pattanaik (J)

CITATION: 1996 SCC (4) 548 JT 1996 (5) 595 1996 SCALE (5)10

ACT:

HEAD NOTE:

O R D E R

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Though the respondent was appointed on February 14, 1972 on ad hoc basis, she was posted at different placed during which period she remained either on leave or absconded from duty, except joining the places nearer to her native place Lakhimpur Kheri. Consequently, authorities had taken action on September 23, 1980 to terminate her service in terms of letter of appointment. The respondent had approached the Tribunal for reinstatement with back wages.

The Tribunal has set aside the order of termination holding that the termination is violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution since no enquiry was conducted against the respondent. The same came to be upheld by the High Court in the impugned order in Writ Petition No.1589(SS)/94 passed on April 5, 1994.

The question, therefore, is: whether it is necessary for the Government to conduct an enquiry as contemplated under Article 311(2) read with the statutory rules? In the State of U.P., there are statutory rules, viz., U.P.

Temporary Government Services Rules, 1975. Rule 14(a) of the said Rules provides for termination of the service of temporary Government servant either with one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof.

Under these circumstances, when the Government exercised the statutory power, the need to conduct enquiry as contemplated under Article 311(2) by necessary implication got obviated. The High Court, therefore, was wrong in holding that the enquiry under Article 311(2) needs to be conducted to terminate the services of even the temporary Government servant.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. However, any salary paid to the respondent during the continuance in services pursuant to the interim direction would not be recovered from her. There will be no order as to costs.

 Back


 



Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered by nubia  |  driven by neosys