of U.P.& Ors Vs. Smt. Kamia Devi & Anr
 INSC 704 (9 May
K.Ramaswamy, K.Faizan Uddin (J) G.B. Pattanaik (J)
1996 SCC (4) 548 JT 1996 (5) 595 1996 SCALE (5)10
O R D
have heard learned counsel for the parties.
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.
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.
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.,
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.
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.
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.