Chand Khundia Vs. Chandigarh Administration & Anr  INSC
543 (9 October 1995)
G.N. (J) Ray, G.N. (J) Nanavati G.T. (J)
1995 SCC (6) 534 1995 SCALE (6)125
O R D
order of termination of the service of the petitioner was challenged by filing
an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 before
the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. Such application has been dismissed by the impugned order. The
applicant was appointed Judge, Chandigarh,
vide order dated March
17, 1982. He was
continuing in temporary service on probation put it appears that his service
was not found satisfactory and as a matter of fact on a number of occasions he
was found by the successive judicial officers under whom the applicant was
working that his integrity was questionable. Considering his service records,
the temporary service of the applicant has been terminated.
P.P. Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted
that if termination has in fact been effected by way of punishment, the real
purpose of the order and not the outer form of it, is required to be looked
into by piercing the veil, He has submitted that if on the score of misconduct,
the service, is terminated without holding by departmental proceeding and
giving the petitioner a chance of showing cause, the order of parte termination
of service on the ground of misconduct is illegal and void.
in the case of temporary service, the provisions of Article 311 of the
Constitution of India is applicable. In support of such contention, reference
has been made to the decision of this Court in Jarnail Singh and Ors. etc.
versus State of Punjab (1986 (2) SCR 1022). It, however,
appears to us that no discriminatory treatment has been meted out to the
petitioner as was done to the employee concerned in the said decision. It
appears that the service of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory for the
reasons indicated hereinbefore. Since the petitioner was holding a temporary
service and was on probation, an order of termination simplicitor has been
passed without attaching any stigma against him. As the service records were
found unsatisfactory, the termination order cannot be held arbitrary and dapricious.
In the aforesaid facts, we do not thing that in reality an order of punishment
has been passed against the petitioner in the clocks or pretence of termination
simplicitor without holding any departmental proceeding thereby violating. Article
311 of the Constitution. We therefore. find no merit in this petition and the
same is dismissed.