Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1996 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1996 (8) TMI 513 - SUPREME COURTTermination of service from Central Public Works Department - whether the appeal has been competently laid? - whether the delay has been properly explained in filing the special leave petition? - Held that:- It is not disputed and cannot be disputed that the Union of India can lay the suit and be sued under Article 300 of the Constitution in relation to its affairs. The appeal came to be filed by the Secretary, though wrongly described. The nomenclature given in the cause title as Secretary instead of Union of India, is not conclusive. The meat of the matter is that the Secretary representing the Government of India had filed the appeal obviously on behalf of Union of India. Accordingly, we reject the first contention. Proper explanation for 217 days has accordingly been given in the affidavit filed in support of the SLP. We find that the explanation offered by the appellant is well acceptable and is accepted. Accordingly, the delay is not in our view a bar to consider the matter on merits. Dismissal order was the foundation for cause of action. After dismissal of the Departmental’s appeal he laid the suit Accordingly, the suit came to be filed within limitation. The employer is entitled to terminate the services of its employee in terms of the order of appointment which confers power to take action in terms thereof. As seen, Rule 5 of Rules clearly gives power to terminate the services of the temporary servant in terms of the order of appointment. Until the temporary service matures into a permanent, he has no right to the post. At any point of time before that right accrues, it is open to the employer to terminate the service in terms of the order of appointment. The High Court wrongly applied the principle of dismissal followed by conviction for misconduct and acquittal thereof. Appeal allowed.
|