Malviya Vs. State of M.P  INSC 25 (14 January 1993)
L.M. (Cj) Sharma, L.M. (Cj) Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) Anand, A.S. (J)
1994 SCC Supl. (1) 73
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The special leave is granted.
appellant was appointed as a social worker on ad hoc basis in 1981. In the year
1987, he was declared to have acquired quasi-permanent status. His services
were terminated by an order passed simpliciter on December 3, 1991. He filed a departmental appeal which was ultimately
dismissed. He thereafter challenged the order of his termination by filing a
suit which was later transferred to the Administrative Tribunal. The
Administrative Tribunal dismissed the suit on several grounds including that of
limitation. The judgment of the Tribunal is under challenge before us in the
Arising out of SLP No. 1417 of 1992 74
is the admitted position before us that the appeal, which had been filed before
the department and was ultimately dismissed, was a statutory one. But the
Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the position and has assumed that there
was no right of appeal under the statute and that the so-called appeal of the
appellant was merely a representation. It therefore held that the transferred
suit was barred by rule of limitation. If the limitation is calculated from the
date when the appeal was dismissed, the suit was admittedly within time. We,
therefore, reverse the finding of the Tribunal recorded against the appellant
on the plea of limitation.
merits the Tribunal has dismissed the suit holding that the Civil Surgeon who
had initially appointed the appellant did not have any power to do so. The
learned counsel for the respondent has placed before us certain administrative
instructions indicating that the Civil Surgeon was subsequently vested with the
power in this regard. Subsequent to this date the Civil Surgeon made an order
granting quasi-permanent status to the appellant.
this order was passed when the Civil Surgeon was fully empowered to do so, it
is futile to suggest that the appellant cannot be treated to be a
quasi-permanent servant under the State. Consequently, the order terminating
his services without holding an inquiry cannot be sustained. We are, therefore,
of the view that the appellant is entitled to succeed in the suit.
question now arises as to the relief which should be granted to the appellant
at this stage. We have examined the service record of the appellant produced
before us, and referred to in the order of Tribunal, which indicates that he
was negligent and repeatedly remained absent for long periods without leave.
His services were otherwise also not satisfactory. These were the reasons which
compelled the authorities concerned to take steps for terminating his services.
Although, the manner in which his services were terminated was not in
accordance with law, it is clear that the authorities which took decision to
terminate his services were acting bona fide and there was justification for
them to have taken up the question as to whether the appellant should be
permitted to continue in the service or not. As, we are interfering in the
present matter purely on a technical ground, we are of the view that the appellant
is not entitled to the salary for the past period. However, since he has been
involved in this litigation, we direct that a sum of Rs 5000 (rupees five
thousand only) shall be paid to the appellant as consolidated amount against
his dues for the back period. Subject to this, he will not be entitled to claim
anything for the past period.
the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment
and direct the respondent-State to reinstate the appellant with effect from February 1, 1993 and pay the aforesaid amount of Rs
5000 within two months from today. If the appellant is not reinstated, as
indicated, he will still be entitled to his pay and allowances with effect from
February 1, 1993.