1968 (2) TMI 119 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Construction of r. 6 of the Punjab Educational Service (Provincialised Cadre) Class III Rules, 1961; Confirmation of the respondents in their posts; Termination of services without confirmation; Violation of Art. 311 of the Constitution.

Construction of r. 6 of the Punjab Educational Service (Provincialised Cadre) Class III Rules, 1961:
The case involved a common question of construction of r. 6 of the Punjab Educational Service (Provincialised Cadre) Class III Rules, 1961. The rules provided for a probationary period for members of the service, and the maximum probation period was set at three years. The respondents were officiating in permanent posts and continued to hold those posts on probation for one year initially. The High Court found that on the completion of the three-year probation period, the respondents must be deemed to have been confirmed in their appointments. The appellants contested this finding, arguing that without formal orders of confirmation, the respondents should be considered to have continued as probationers or discharged and re-employed as temporary employees after the probation period. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, emphasizing the need for an express order of confirmation to confer substantive rights to the post.

Confirmation of the respondents in their posts:
The Supreme Court analyzed the application of r. 6(3) to the respondents' case. The appointing authority did not pass any order under r. 6(3) after the completion of the initial one-year probation period. By allowing the respondents to continue in their posts without a formal order of confirmation, the authority was deemed to have extended the probation period up to a certain date. However, the proviso to r. 6(3) limited the extension of the probationary period. The Court concluded that the respondents must be deemed to have been confirmed in their posts, as the authority did not dispense with their services on completion of the extended probation period.

Termination of services without confirmation:
The respondents' services were terminated by the Director without holding any departmental inquiry or providing an opportunity for representations. The High Court held that the termination amounted to removal from service by way of punishment and violated Art. 311 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court agreed with this finding, stating that the impugned orders deprived the respondents of their right to hold their posts, which required following the procedure laid down in the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952.

Violation of Art. 311 of the Constitution:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the termination of the respondents' services without following the procedure prescribed in the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952, and without conforming to the constitutional requirements of Art. 311 amounted to removal from service by way of punishment. The impugned orders were set aside by the High Court, and the appeals were dismissed with costs.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, emphasizing the importance of formal orders of confirmation for substantive rights to a post and the necessity of following the prescribed procedures for termination of services. The Court held that the termination of services without confirmation and without adherence to the statutory rules constituted removal from service by way of punishment, in violation of constitutional provisions.