Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 673 (MP)

Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma v. State of M. P.

2003-05-06

S.P.KHARE

body2003
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 19-12-1995 of the respondent No. 3 by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated by giving him one month notice. ( 2. ) THE petitioner was appointed as Library Attendant by order dated 17-2-1992 of respondent No. 3 Registrar, M. P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in the pay scale of Rs. 750-945. A copy of the appointment letter is Annexure P-l. It was stipulated in this order that the services of the petitioner would be purely temporary and liable to termination at any time without notice. His services were terminated by order dated 19-12-1995 (Annexure P-2) with effect from 18-1-1996. Thus, the petitioner was given one month notice. This is termination simpliciter. ( 3. ) THE petitioners case is that he had completed more than three years of service and he had acquired quasi permanent status and his services could not be terminated without holding a departmental inquiry. According to the petitioner his work was satisfactory. In the alternative it is stated that if the termination is based on any misconduct then it was necessary to hold a regular D. E. giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing in which he could establish his innocence. ( 4. ) THE respondents case is that the services of the petitioner were not satisfactory. He was arrogant and not discharging the duties properly. He was found unsuitable for the post and for that reason his services have been terminated. He used to remain absent from his duty while posted at Gwalior. He was informed of this state of affairs in writing and his explanation was obtained. He has been discharged without casting any stigma on him. ( 5. ) THE learned Counsel for both the sides have been heard. Rule 3 of the M. P. Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter to referred to as the Rules) is as under:- " rule 3. He has been discharged without casting any stigma on him. ( 5. ) THE learned Counsel for both the sides have been heard. Rule 3 of the M. P. Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter to referred to as the Rules) is as under:- " rule 3. A Government servant shall be deemed to be in quasi-permanent service:- (i) if he has been in temporary service in the same service or post continuously for more than three years; and (ii) if the appointing authority being satisfied as to his suitability in respect of age, qualifications, work and character for employment in a quasi-permanent capacity, has issued a declaration to that effect, in accordance with such instructions as the Governor may issue from time to time. " In the present case the petitioner has no doubt completed three years of temporary service but no declaration as to his suitability for that post has been issued as envisaged in Clause (ii) of Rule 3 of the Rules. The petitioner can get advantage of this rule if both conditions in Clauses (i) and (ii) of Rule 3 of the Rules were satisfied. He does not satisfy the requirement of Clause (ii) of Rule 3 of the Rules. Rule 3-A of the Rules is not attracted in the present case as the petitioner has not completed five years of temporary service. In view of this factual scenario the petitioner could not be treated to be in quasi-permanent service. ( 6. ) ACCORDING to the respondents the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory and he was not found suitable for the post of Library Attendant. The petitioner was given show- cause notice twice and his explanation was obtained. That was with a view to decide his suitability for the post and whether he should continue in service. In the order dated 19-12-1995 no stigma has been cast on the petitioner. It is a simple discharge order in conformity with Rule 12 of the Rules. As the order was not founded on any misconduct, there was no need to hold any departmental inquiry against the petitioner on any specific charge. In the order dated 19-12-1995 no stigma has been cast on the petitioner. It is a simple discharge order in conformity with Rule 12 of the Rules. As the order was not founded on any misconduct, there was no need to hold any departmental inquiry against the petitioner on any specific charge. Recently the Supreme Court has reviewed the entire case law on this point in P. N. Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi P. G. L of Medical Sciences, AIR 2002 SC 23 , and it has been laid down : "one of the judicially evolved tests to determine whether in substance an order of termination is punitive is to see whether prior to the termination there was (a) a full scale formal enquiry, (b) into allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct which (c) culminated in a finding of guilt. If all three factors are present the termination has been held to be punitive irrespective of the form of the termination order. Conversely if any one of the three factors is missing the termination has been upheld. The language used in the order of termination is that the probationer appellants "work and conduct has not been found to be satisfactory". These fall within the class of non-stigmatic orders of termination. It is, therefore, safe to conclude that the impugned order is not ex facie stigmatic. It also cannot be held that the enquiry held prior to order of termination turned this otherwise innocuous order into one of punishment. The reason being an employer is entitled to satisfy itself as to the competence of a probationer to be confirmed in service and for this purpose satisfy itself fairly as to the truth of any allegation that may have been made about the employee. " ( 7. ) THE termination of the services of the petitioner does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The petition is dismissed.