ANOOP JAISWAL v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & Anr.

Where ·uie form of the order i_s mere_Iy a cam<;iufiage for an order of dismissal for misco_nduct ~t is always _open to the Court before which the order js challenged to go behind the fo~ and_ascertain t_he true character of the order .. If the Court G . holds. t~at the .order -though in_ the_ form is merely a determination of employ~ ment is in reality a cloak for an order of punishment, the Court ·would not be debarred, merely b~ause of the form·of the order, in giving effect to the rights' <Wnferred by law upon the employee. [563 E-F] Parshotam Lai Dhingra v. Union of India, [1958] · S. C. R. 828; Shl/msher .Singh & Anr. v. State oj'Punjab, [1975] I S. C, R. 814; State of Punjab & Anr. A B c D . E G H 454 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS . . . f!984] 2 S.C.R .. v. Shri Silkh Raj Bahadur, · (1969] 3 S.C.C:. 603;· Stale of Bihar & Ors. 'v. ·Shiva .· Bhikshuk Mishra, (1971] 2 S. C.R. 191; R.S. Sia/ v . .The. State of U. p, & Ors., . [197.4p S. C. R. 754; State .of U.P. v; Ram Chandra· Trivedi, [1977] 1 ·s. C. R .. I. N. Sakseno v. State of Madhya Pradesh; [1967] 2 S. C. R. 496;. 462; and referred to. · , . In the instarit case, on. gOing· through the rccQrd· ·and taking. intojaccount all the attendant 'circumstances the Court, "is_ satisfied that the __ alleged l'ct of mis-. condl.!:ct On JunC 22, 1981 Was· t.he : real f0und-ation for the· action taken. against the aPPellant.-:lnd _that the othei- iristances stated .in the· course of the co~nter affl.9.avit ~re mere allegations which ar~ put forward orily for purposes of strengtti~ning the· defcllce which ·is otheiwise ve'rY weak.· The case is one which attracted ArtiC1e··311 (2) of ·the. Constitution ·as ··the. iffipug·nCd order amounts tp a tefmination of se.rvice by. way Of punish1nent anct·an eilquiry should have been -~\ in accordariCe with-the -said· Constitutional provision. That admittt:dlY. havirtg hot ~~n·.d.one, tfie .imp~gned. o.rd_er is liable. to _be Struck dowq. ,[4~5 B·C] '' 1 C1VIL APPELLATE Jrni.iS;ICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3040 of 1982 . . . • . . . . · . . . ·. Appoal by Spo.cia] leave from the Judgtnent and Order dated the 30th August, 1982 of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No. 1580 of l 982j. · · . K.N. Bbatt for the Appellant. . ..... M.S. Gujra/ and G.S. Narain for the Respondent . .The Judgment of the Court was delivered by : • . VENKATARAMIAH, J. June 22, 1981 was really a bad day f°' the . app~llant A1ioop Jaiswa·J w))n having .. been selecied by the Union Public Service Commission for· appointment in the Indian Police· Service was. undergoing training as a proba.tioner at the Sardar Valla bhbhai Patel National Police· Academy, Hyderabad alongwitk ofoer probationers, On that day all the probatio.riers were expected to. be present at 5.50 A.M. at the field where the ceremonial ilrill practice was to be conducted.· Sinceit ~as raining at that time it appears thar the. venue was shifted to the Gymnasium .Hall wtete it was proposed. · to cond.uct P.T./unartned combat practice. and intimation was sent ta· the .trainees at the: Mess. When .the Assistant Director (Outdoor the Gymnasium at S.50 A.M. none of the pr~ba: Trai~ing) reached tion.ers had ·.reached there. They ali · reached the place 22 minutes late i.e. by 6.15 A.M. when the rains had abated a~d the parade c~m~ menced at 6.15 A.M .. It appears that earlier when a.messenger sent . by the Assistant Director had gone to rnll the probationers tl1ey had • . , •. ANOOP. JA!SWAL v. oovr: OF INDIA (Venkataramiah J.) . 455 asked for a vehicle to ·go to tile place as it ·was. r~ining. This ,delay . was considered as an inddent which called for an enquiry. · Explapa- tion was· called from all 'the probationers. The appellant was coy- · sidered to be one of the ring leaders who:was responsible for the delay. • When t.he appellant was asked lfbout ihe incident, he gave his explana, t1on to the Director of the National Police Academy which read thus: · The .Director, National Police Academy, • Hyd.erabad. .+ J, A B c Dear Sir, . fn reply to your Momo. dated 22nd June,.1981 I.humbly s~bmit that as for iny being late in P,T. by IO mts,, I sincerely regret the lapse: But the ·second charge that I instigated oihe~s to do 'so is totally baseless and without a single iota . I request you .Sir to make a thorough enquiry fo~o. of truth. I never had ·nor have such plebian . such an allegation. . mentallv. · •• J ·~ 'j) · Thanking you, Yours'·sincerely, sd/ . E Anoop Jaiswal'~ . ·• .. ' It would appear·that .the Director without holding· an enquiry into the alleged misconduct recommended to the. Qovernment of India that the appellant should be discharged from the service. On •ihe .basis of the above report, the G'overnment of India passed the order of discharge dated November 5, 19Sland 'communicated it .to the ,appellant. The material part of the order.reads thus.: \ _.., ''No. Ic220l 1/9/81 Pers. HI Government of India/Bharat. Sarkar M nistry of Home Arfairs/Grih Mantralaya N~w Delhi-110001, the 9 Nov. 1981 ' ·• ORDER F G. Whereas the· Central Government is satisfied that Shri H Anoop Jai3wal, appoi~ti; ci to the lndi.an Police Service on pro- • • ' 456, ·• SUPRE'J:E COURT REPORTS (1984] 2 S.C.R. . ' bation on the result of the c;vil Service E~amination held in the year 1979, is unsuitable for bein,g a memb~r of the said service, he is hereby discharged under clause (b) of Rule 12 of the Indian Police Service (P•cbation) Rules, 1954. . The order\ of discharge. will take dfect from the date on which it is served on the said Shri Anoop Jaiswal. . ' + ( . - (.' \,_· In the name of and on behalf of the President of India . . , sd/- (NARENDRA PRASA~ ; • D'IR.ECTOR" . , · .. :· · to reconsider the ma tier. On, receipt of the above order of discharge, the app€llant made a representation on November 14, 1981 to the Government of India . ·It appears that the Director of the jlational Police Academy on this occasion recommended that the appellant may be rei11stated. That representation was rejected by the Govern ment ~of India 'On April° 8, 1982. Thereafter,. he filed a petition under Art.icle ·226 of the Con·stitution before the High Court of Delhi ~·contending that the·.order of discharge was violative of Article 311(2) a1~d Article 1.4 of the Constitution. That petition was dismissed by . •the High Court at the stage of admission on August 30,1982 after hearing the counsel· for the .Union of India. Against the judgment of the· High C:ourt.-ihe appe:lant has filed this appeal with special. leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. :r ' . " The main contention of the appellant before us is that the order ' djscharging the petitioner though on the face of it appears to carry• . .no stigmais in reality an order terminating his service on the ground of ·misconduct alleged to have been committed by him on June: 22, 1981 in acting as one of the ring leaders who were responsible for tlie delay of about twenty-two minutes in the arrival of the probationers at the Gymnasium and that such an order could not have been passed without holding an enquiry as contemplate51 under Article 311(2) of " the Constitution and ihe relevant ·rules governing such an enquiry. He has also contended that the m•tler is based· on conjunctures and surm.ises and by way of illustration he has referred us to paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit which reads thus ; • , , ~ - ,. A B c D E F G ,H "P.ara 13 ; • ... ANOOP JAiSWAL v. GOVT .. OF INDIA (Venkataramiah, J.) 457 + • l \ i .. The petitioner did not conduct himself fully in accordance for duty in time. with the p~esotibed rules and regulations during his training· period. On one. occasion"when he was sanctioned '!eave for 16 days in the month Qf May, 1981, he did not report himself ·He absented himself wilfully o.n !.6.1981 without applying for. leave for the day. For this action, he was warned by the Director against recurrence of· such con quct The period of his wilful absence fof one day was treated as leave without pay. On two earlier occasions; the petitioner's conduct w~s found prejudicial to good order and discipline, on the first occ~sion lie was verbally counselled by the Chief. Drill Instruc_tor and.on the.second occasion a • Memo mas issued to ~him. · There was no gradation maintained Jn tile Atademy · · about the aitendauce, in terms of which the petitioner had the record of being second (or may be third) highest in the Academy. However, -thisrecord in this respect was other.wise satisfactory," · The reply of the appellant to the above allegation is found in filed by the appellant paragraph· 6 of the rojoinder.affidavit which reads : · "Re: Paral3: The avermentsma de in; iara 13 of the petition are reiterated and the contentions of, the respondent It is reiterated that to the contrary are denied as incorrect. the petitioner conducted himsel( full f in accordance with · rules and regulations. The allegatiol). made by the respondent that I absented myself wilfully on 1.6.1981 without applying for leave for. the day is highly misleading.· The correct fact is that J was sanctioned my Earned Leave on 1s:s.81 for a period o( 16days, and I was to report back for duty on 1.6.81 before 12.00 noon. I made arrangemen_t .to reach Hyderabad l:iefore 8.00 a.m. on 1.6.1981. However' en account.of late running of train ·in which I wµs travelling and C<rn1;equently missing the connecting train, I could reach Hyderabad only around noon and I report 'lt 1.00 p.m. .AU-these facts were duly.explained to the Asstt. Director, Outdoor Training; and he· permitted. to attend the afternoon classes on 1.6.81 which (However, at this sugg<slion, !applied ·f6r leave for J did. It is the day and the leave was sanctioned without pay). • A B c D E F . . G. H .. 458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] 2 S.C.R. incorrect to say that I was warned for'this. AU that the Director said was that o.n suc.h situations, the proper course was to .apply for a day's leavt ·which I did as stated earlier. It is, therefore, very unreasonable to characterise the said incident as ·wilful absence:. The further allegation. that . on the earlier occasions, the· petitioner's c~nduct was found prej"dioial to good crrder and disoipline, is very vague and without any . ·particulars. Counselling by the Instructor . concerned i; a routine affair and, in fact, the Instructors are - meant. to counsel.· ·Even rega, rding the second occasion, wlien a memo was said to. have issued, it is not stated as to. what the ·offence was. His significarti to note that ··the. respondent has ·not denied tl\e allegation made by me that J · was not the· only one who received such memos and that without exception all the probationary officers had at some time or the other received such me;,.,os. J de11y tlie rest of the .allegations an<>l reiterate the. averments made in para l3 of tlie petition.'.' . . .. . . . ' \ ' • The .. Jearned counsei for the parties have cited a number of. decisions before us in· support of·their respective cases. On going ·'through theh1 we are of the view that there is not much divergence true Jega./ principles· to be follo;,,ed in ma!ters of in them as to the the ·real proble~ appears to be· one of applicati_on this nature but of thpse pri~cipl's iri a given case in determining whether the parti- . cular action taken amounts to a punishment attracting Article 311(2} · of the Constituti~n or a· mere discharge s;mPJiciter not requiring the holding of .a·n: enquiry as contemplated under Article 311(2). .We shall now deal with two leading cases having a bearing on the question before us. In Parshotam• Lal Dhingta. v. Uni~1i of India<" this Court after. a.n elaborate consideration of· the relevant· provisions of the . ... . . \:onstitution and judicial decisi~ns cited before them observed.: . . . . ' ' - :'The net ·1;esu!t is-that "it.iS cnly iri thcsc_ C-asrs ~l.cre 11·.e . Govcr,)Jn~nt intends to inflict those_ three ·fcnns of punis)1- ments .tl1at the Govern1nent S·:'!Jva'nt must be give"n a reason able opp0rtunity:ofsho\Ying cau~e against the actibn propos·ed fo be taken ill regard to them. ff the· termin.c1tfon of nvice is sought to be brougU about otherwise than by way of punishment then the Gove.rnment _servant \Yhose s·ervice IS so terminated· Cannot claim· the· It fol!O\vs, ·therefore, I . . (I) [1958] S.C.R. 828 . .. · .... A B c F H • ANOOP JAIS~AL v. GOVT. OF INDIA.(Ve11kataramiah, J.) 459 .. ' , + protection of Art: 3 I I (2) and the decisions cited before us and refetre.d to above, in so fa r as they lay.down that principle, must be held to be rightly decided, 0 ,. ·'°' 1 • \ ; • '\. ' • • ·~. The rofegoing conclusion, however, does not .sol.ve the .. entire problem, for· it lias yet to be ascertained as to when an order for the termination of service is inflicted .as and by way of punishment and when it is not" .. "" " ......... . . Wliere a person is appointed' to a permanent post in a Governm~nt service on probation, the terminati.on of his service during· or at the end' of the period of probation will not ordinarily and by itself be a punishment, for ·the Govern me.nt servant, so appointed; has no ·right to continue to hold such a post any more:thaq the servant employed on pw-. batio.n by a private empl0yer is entitled to do. Such a termination does not operate ·as a forfeiture ·.of any right of the servant to. hold th.e post, for he has no such right and obviously cannot. be a dismissal, removal or reduction in. rank by way of punishment .. · ... _ ...................... . ft does not~ however, follow that;.exceptin the three cases . mentioned .above, in. all" other cases, fer1niii.ation of service · of a Government servant who has ·no ·right to h{s post, e.g., where he was appointed ·to a post, temporary or permanent, either on probation or on an officiating basis and had not acquired a quasi-permanent status, the termination cannot, in any circumstances, be a dismissal or removal from service by way of punishme~t. , ....... : ' , ................ : ..... . Jn short, if the termination of service is· founded on the · right flowing from contract or the service rules then, prima facie, the termination is not a punishment and carries with ·it ·no evil .consequences and so Art. .311 is not attracted . But even if the Govermpeni has, by contract. or .under the rules, the .right to terminate the empioyment without going thro\Ighthe procedure prescribed for inflictihg the punish1'1ent of dismissal or remo.val or reduction in rank, .the .Govern' m>:nt may, nevertheless, choo.se to punish the se.rva1\t and· if the te~mination of servite is sought· to be founded on mis cond net, negligence, · inefficiency· or other disqualification, · then· it is a punishment and the requirements of Art. 311 must be complied with." .. A · B c D E F G H Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner I A ··~ · .•. ' • A 'B c 464 'SUPREME COURT RNPORT.S [1984] 2 S.C.R. fate at the G¥mnasium and acting as oile of !he ring leaders on the occasion and his explanation was obtained. Similar explanations we.re called for from other probationers and. enquiries were made . behind the back of the appellant, . only the .case of the appellant was dealt with severely in the end. The cases Of other probationers who were also considered to. be ring leaders were not seriously_taken note of. Even though the order of discharge may be non-committal, it .cannot stand alone. Though the notfog in the file of the Government . may be irrelevant, the- cause for the order cannot be ignored. The recommendation of the Director which is the basis or foundation for· the order should ·be read alongwith the order for the purpose of deter mining its true character. Jf on reading the two together the Court . teacll!'s the .conclusion that the alleged act of misconduct ·was the cause of the order and that but for that incident it would not have been passed then it is inevitable that the order of discharge should fall to the ground· as the appellant has not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself as provided m Article 311(2) of the Constitution. D E F G , The Union of India has placed before us.all the relevant material including the recommendation of the Directo~ of the National Police Academy that the appellant may be reinstated.· In this ca;e, as stated above, explanation was called for form the appellant and. other pro bationers: Bx,planations were received and ·an the probationers the aJ?pellant were individually interviewed in order to Including ascertain' facts. Explanation submitted by him .and the answers given by others had weighed with the Director before making the recci1l!men- · dation to the Government of India on the basis of which action was tak~n. The only ground which ultimately prevailed upon the Director was that the appellant had not shqwn any sign u( repentance without informing him that his case would be dealt with leniently if he showed In fact in the ·very. first reply he gave to the anv sign of repentance. Director on being asked about the incident which took place on June 22, 1981, the · ~ppelhnt stated '.I sincer.elv regret ti1e lapse,' Neither in the·letter which the Director first wrote to the Central Government, nor in the counter affidavit filed fo. this Court, due importance ·has been given to the said expression of regret and it is further seen that no additional lapse on the part of the appellant between June 22, 1981 and the date on which the Director wrote the letter to the central Government, which would show that the apP"llant had not shown any sign of repentance is pointed out, although th~re is a reference to his reporting to duty late on an earlier date oil June !, 1981. On . goihg .through. the above record before the' Court and .taking into • - ANOOP JAISWAL v. GOVT. OF INDIA (Ven, kataramiah, J.) . 465 ' account all the attendant circumstances we are satisfied. that the Director wished to make the case of the appellaµt an example· for others including those other probationers who were similarly situated so that they may learn a. Jesson therefrom. l • ' A narration Of the facts of the case leaves. no doubt that the alleged act of misconduct on June 22, 1981 was the real foundation for the action taken against the appellant and that the other instances 'stated in the course of the counter affidavit are mere allegations which are put forward on!)' for purposes of strengthenipg the defence which is otherwise ver 1 weak. The case is one which attrac.ted Article 311(2) '(. .. of the Constitu'tion as the impugned order amounts tb a termination of service by way of punishment and an enquiry.should have been held in accordance with the said' constitutional provision. That admittedly having not been done, the impugned order is liable to be struck down. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the High Court and the impugned order dated November 5, 1981 discharging the appellant from service. The appellant should no\\ be re-· instated in service with the sa.me rank and seniority he was entitled to before the impugned order was passed as if it had not been passed at all. He is also entitled to all consequentiai benefits including the appropriate year.of allotment and the arrears of salary and allowances upto the 'date of his reinstatement. The appeaHs accofdingly allowed. • The appellant had to face this case just at the ~ommencement of his career. We ha, ve allowed his claim in the name of the Con stitution. This should help him to regain his spirit and also encourage him to turn out to be a public servant in the true sense of that expression. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we 'feel that the parties should be directed to bear their own costs. ' H.S.K. A.ppea/ allowed. A B c D E F