TMI Blog1978 (11) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.00 P.M. Of December 30, 1966, why disciplinary 8 action be not taken against him as per Rules. It was further stated in the notice that failure to comply with the notice will result in the respondent's suspension and further disciplinary action against him. Thereafter on January 3, 1967, an order was served on the respondent, terminating his service. This order (hereinafter called the impugned order) runs as under: Office of the Manager, Government Branch Press, Mercara. Memoranda As per instructions contained in Head Office Order No. 570/66-67, dated 3-1-1967, Sri D. B. Belliappa, Junior Compositor of this Office is hereby informed that your appointment is purely temporary and terminable at any time without any previous notice and without reasons being assigned therefore are not required. Therefore your services are hereby terminated with immediate effect. Sd/- xxx Government Branch Press, Mercara. On January 7, 1967, Belliappa submitted a representation, dated January 6, 1967, to the Branch Manager against termination of his service, but without success, attributing motives to his immediate superior officer, that his relations with the Respondent were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. this appeal by special leave. Mr. Veerappa, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the respondent, Belliappa, was appointed in a temporary capacity and his service could be terminated at any time without notice. The proposition propounded is that Articles 14 and 16 are not attracted in a case where the services of a temporary employee are terminated in accordance with the conditions of his service. In the alternative, it is submitted that the principle of 'first come and last go' may apply only when there is a general retrenchment and not where there is some special reason for terminating the services of one employee while continuing his juniors in the temporary service. It is maintained that the show-cause notice which was served on the respondent on December 29, 1966, furnishes the motive or the cause for terminating the respondent's services, while retaining his juniors in service. Mr. Veerappa contends that in spite of the fact that the position taken by the appellants in the impugned order was that the service of the respondent was being terminated without assigning any reason in accordance with the conditions of his service, it could be spelled ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icient particularity against the appellant. Hostile animus was also attributed by Belliappa in his writ petition to his superior officers. In the additional grounds of his further affidavit, Belliappa averred that his service record was good. This fact has not been controverted by the appellant by filing any counter-affidavit. However, there is material on the record to show that the impugned order was preceded by a show-cause notice of proposed disciplinary action against Belliappa. It could, therefore, be presumed that but for this show-cause notice, the service record of Belliappa was good. At any rate, there is nothing on the record to show that the service record of Belliappa was, m any way, inferior to his three juniors who have been retained in service. The impugned order itself says that Belliappa's services are being terminated without assigning any reason, and the same has been reiterated in the counter- affidavit, dated September 22, 1967, filed on behalf of the present appellant in the High Court. In order to satisfy our conscience and appreciate the arguments of Mr. Veerappa that the services of the respondent have been terminated on the ground of unsuitability, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ionality and fairness, discretion degenerates into arbitrariness which is the very anti-thesis of the rule of law on which our democratic polity is founded. Arbitrary invocation or enforcement of a service condition terminating the service of a temporary employee may itself constitute denial of equal protection and offend the Equality clause in Article 14 and 16(1). Article 16(1) guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State . Moreover, according to the principle underlying Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, the expression appointment used in Article 16(1) will include termination of or removal from service, also. It is now well settled that the expression matters relating to employment used in Article 16(1) is not confined to initial matters prior to the act of employment. but comprehends all matters in relation to employment both prior, and subsequent, to the employment which are incidental to the employment and form part of the terms and conditions of such employment, such as, provisions as to salary, increments, leave, gratuity, pension, age of superannuation, promotion and even term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich came up for consideration in that case, gave power to the Government to terminate the service of a temporary Government servant by giving him one month's notice or on payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice. This rule was attacked on the ground that it was hit by Article 16. In the alternative, it was urged that even if rule 5 is good, the order by which the appellant's services were dispensed with, was bad because it was discriminatory. Reference was made to a number of persons whose services were not dispensed with, even though they were junior to the appellant and did not have as good qualifications as he had. Wanchoo J. (as he then was, speaking for the Court, repelled the alternative argument in these terms: We are of opinion that there is no force in this contention. This is not a case where services of a temporary employee are being retrenched because of the abolition of a post. In such a case, a question may arise as to who should be retrenched when one out of several temporary post is being retrenched in an office. In those circumstances, qualifications and length of service of those holding similar temporary posts may be relevant in considering w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charge by disclosing to the Court the reason or motive which impelled it to take the impugned action. Excepting, perhaps, in cases analogous to those covered by Article 311(2), Proviso (c), the authority cannot withhold such information from the Court on the lame excuse, that the impugned order is purely administrative and not judicial, having been passed in exercise of its administrative discretion under the rules governing the conditions of the service. The giving of reasons , as Lord Denning put it in Green v. Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971] 1 All E.R. at p.114 is one of the fundamentals of good administration , and, to recall the words of this Court in Khudi Ram v. State of West Bengal [1975] (2) S.C.R. 832 at page 845.in a Government of laws there is nothing like unfettered discretion immune from judicial review ability . The executive, no less than the judiciary, is under a general duty to act fairly. Indeed, fairness founded on reason is the essence of the guarantee epitomised in Articles 14 and 16(1). Another facet of Mr. Veerappa's contention is that the respondent had voluntarily entered into a contract of service on the terms of employment offered to him. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
