1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -130
On the other hand, termination of services in the following situations was held to be dismissal or removal attracting provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution
520. Where though the services were terminated under Temporary Service Rules, but the petitioner was deprived of half of his pay during suspension and also of house rent and dearness allowances during that period. Held, the termination was by way of suspension (Union of India v. Jeewan Ram, AIR 1958 SC 905]
521. Where though termination was under Temporary Service Rules, a bar was placed against his re-employment in Government service through departmental instructions. The stand of the Government that the instructions were for future guidance only and not to prevent him from applying for a post under the Government was not accepted because in view of those instructions any application made by him seeking an employment under the Government would be treated as a waste paper [Krishan Chander v. Chairman, C.T.O., AIR 1962 SC 602).
522. Where though the order purported to be of simple termination of temporary employment, the person concerned was refused priority by the Employment Exchange because the authorities had informed them that the real reason for termination of his services was different. He was also denied full pay for the period of suspension [R. K. Bhatt v. Union of India, SLR (1970) SC 867).
523. Where though termination was simpliciter, the Chief Minister made a statement in the Assembly that his services were not satisfactory and that the Government was considering issuing a show cause notice to him. Held, this cast a stigma [Madan Mohan Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1973 SC 1133).
524. Where though services were terminated by an innocuous order but actually it was done on verification of character and antecedents because of his past political activities [State of M.P. v. Ramashanker Raghuvanshi, AIR 1983 SC 374].
525. Where the termination of a temporary employee was for the only reason that he was 'prima facie' responsible for the loss of some document from the judicial record on account of negligence and carelessness. It was held that the action was penal in nature and attracted provisions of Art. 311(2) [Kanhialal v. District Judge, (1983)3 SCC 32).
526. Where termination was based on a detailed preliminary inquiry held behind the back of the employee in which witnesses were examined in regard to a complaint of misconduct against the employee and definitive conclusion reached that he was guilty, the Supreme Court held that detailed preliminary inquiry indicated that alleged misconduct was ‘very foundation of termination order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 609].
527. Where an employee promoted to a higher post was terminated on abolition of the higher post [Suraj Prakash Bhandari v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 958). The Court observed that the right course of action was to revert him back to his original post.
528. Forced Resignation (Shriram S.S. Sanstha v. Education Officer, 1984 Lab. IC 100: J.J.S. Sanstha v. Dr. V.P. Satpute, SLJ (1986)2 Bom. 179].
529. Where the petitioner was re-instated to a temporary post instead of a permanent post. Held, the order amounted to his removal from permanent post (Laxman Hirway v. State, AIR 1958 M.P. 135).
530. Where the last sentence of the termination order said "and that he will not be considered for appointment as Patwari in future.” Reason: it was a case of removal with stigma attached [Baljeet Singh v. State, 1967 SLR 600].
531. Where the petitioner was put off duty on allegation of misconduct which said to be under inquiry, but subsequently his services were terminated simpliciter. In the counter affidavit averment was made that there were allegations in support of termination. The order of termination was held to be one of punishment [Ananta Charan v. Inspector, Post Offices, AIR 1980 Orissa-F.B. 165]
Post a Comment