1997 JTR(SC) 559
1997 AIR(SC) 3659 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 1912 ; 1997 2 CLR 13 ; 1997 66 DLT 789 ; 1997 4 JT 541 ; 1997 LIC 2077 ; 1997 3 LLN 73 ; 1997 3 RSJ 291 ; 1997 3 Scale 459 ; 1997 4 SCC 385 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 1076 ; 1997 3 SCR 364 ; 1997 3 SCT 318 ; 1997 2 SLR 523 ; 1997 2 UPLBEC 1175 ; 1997 KHC 843 ; 1997 3 Supreme 679
1997(3) Supreme 679
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Shri Bihari Lal Sidhana -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2668 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 316 of 1997)
Decided on 25-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Sushma Manchanda and D.S. Mehra, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Gurmeet Singh, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Termination order indicating the fact the concerned official was order suspension did not constitute any stigma.
Act Referred :CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES TEMPORARY SERVICES RULES : R.5(1)
(A) The termination of services of a temporary Government servant under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, specifically Rule 5(1), was under scrutiny where misappropriation of public funds was discovered during employment. The proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 empowers the competent authority to terminate the services forthwith, and the order was challenged on the ground that it was passed with stigma by referencing suspension, potentially prejudicing the employee without a full enquiry. The applicability of the rule in cases involving defalcation by temporary servants and the interplay between criminal acquittal and departmental proceedings were examined under this statutory framework.
(B) Key legal principles include that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically mandate reinstatement of a Government servant, the competent authority retains discretion to take disciplinary action or terminate services under the Temporary Service Rules, a temporary employee lacks the same reinstatement rights as a regular employee, termination under Rule 5(1) does not inherently carry stigma merely by referencing suspension, and the power to terminate can be exercised to avoid protracted enquiries for misconduct involving public funds.
Facts of the case:
The respondent was a Cash Clerk in Delhi Milk Scheme and mis-appropriated funds on more than one occasion, with Rs. 17,744.91 misappropriated on April 2, 1972. Following a criminal prosecution, orders were passed under Rule 5(1) terminating his services with reference to him being under suspension. He was subsequently acquitted in the criminal case and filed a writ petition challenging the termination order.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench held that the order of removal indicated stigma by mentioning suspension, making the termination illegal without an enquiry, and directed payment of compensation. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the order was valid, acquittal does not guarantee reinstatement, and the competent authority may terminate services under Rule 5(1) without conducting an enquiry.
Issues:
Whether an order of termination referencing suspension carries stigma and is illegal for a temporary Government servant, whether criminal acquittal mandates reinstatement, and whether the competent authority acted within Rule 5(1) powers.
Ratio Decidendi:
Temporary Government servants can be terminated under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, without an enquiry even if they are acquitted in criminal proceedings, as reinstatement is not automatic and the authority may take disciplinary action to protect public funds.
Result:
Appeal allowed, Division Bench judgment set aside, single Judge's order confirmed, and writ petition dismissed.
(A) The termination of services of a temporary Government servant under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, specifically Rule 5(1), was under scrutiny where misappropriation of public funds was discovered during employment. The proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 empowers the competent authority to terminate the services forthwith, and the order was challenged on the ground that it was passed with stigma by referencing suspension, potentially prejudicing the employee without a full enquiry. The applicability of the rule in cases involving defalcation by temporary servants and the interplay between criminal acquittal and departmental proceedings were examined under this statutory framework.
(B) Key legal principles include that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically mandate reinstatement of a Government servant, the competent authority retains discretion to take disciplinary action or terminate services under the Temporary Service Rules, a temporary employee lacks the same reinstatement rights as a regular employee, termination under Rule 5(1) does not inherently carry stigma merely by referencing suspension, and the power to terminate can be exercised to avoid protracted enquiries for misconduct involving public funds.
Facts of the case:
The respondent was a Cash Clerk in Delhi Milk Scheme and mis-appropriated funds on more than one occasion, with Rs. 17,744.91 misappropriated on April 2, 1972. Following a criminal prosecution, orders were passed under Rule 5(1) terminating his services with reference to him being under suspension. He was subsequently acquitted in the criminal case and filed a writ petition challenging the termination order.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench held that the order of removal indicated stigma by mentioning suspension, making the termination illegal without an enquiry, and directed payment of compensation. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the order was valid, acquittal does not guarantee reinstatement, and the competent authority may terminate services under Rule 5(1) without conducting an enquiry.
Issues:
Whether an order of termination referencing suspension carries stigma and is illegal for a temporary Government servant, whether criminal acquittal mandates reinstatement, and whether the competent authority acted within Rule 5(1) powers.
Ratio Decidendi:
Temporary Government servants can be terminated under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, without an enquiry even if they are acquitted in criminal proceedings, as reinstatement is not automatic and the authority may take disciplinary action to protect public funds.
Result:
Appeal allowed, Division Bench judgment set aside, single Judge's order confirmed, and writ petition dismissed.
ORDER
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench, made on September 12, 1996 in L.P.A. No. 215/1979 by the Delhi High Court. While the respondent was working as a Cash Clerk in Delhi Milk Scheme, temporary mis-appropriation of the funds on more than one occasion was discovered. When misappropriation of Rs. 17,744.91 on April 2, 1972 was reported, a prosecution was laid against the respondent. While the prosecution was pending, orders were passed by the competent authority on April 24, 1972 as under:
"In pursuance of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, I hereby terminate forthwith the services of Shri B.L. Sidhana, Cash Clerk (under suspension), Delhi Milk Scheme and direct that he shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of pay and allowances for a period of one month (in lieu of the period of notice) was drawing them immediately before the date on which he was drawing them immediately before the date on which he was placed under suspension."
3. The respondent was acquitted of the charge in criminal case and therefore, he filed a writ petition. In his order, the learned single Judge held thus :
"The petition of a Cash Clerk is one of confidence and responsibility. Even if the incidents averred against the petitioner were not proved, they were such, as to lead a prudent employer to terminate the services of the employee on the ground of his, not being desirable. The order of termination was passed, as noticed above, one year after the criminal case had started and two years after the enquiry. The enquiry appears not to have been completed, so, no definite opinion had been arrived as with regard to the guilt of the petitioner. No evil consequences were visited on the petition as a result of the order of termination. Nor has any stigma been attached. No penalties were inflicted on the petitioner despite the enquiries, and the start of the criminal case. In the circumstances the order of termination simpliciter is valid. Since the order is innocuous, there is not need to peer behind it, unless malafides had been established."
4. On appeal, the Division Bench reversed it, holding that the order of removal does indicate that it was termination of the services of the respondent with stigma attached by mentioning (under suspension). Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 was exercise with stigma attached in the order. The order does indicate that he was under suspension. It postulates that it was by way of a misconduct and thereby without conducting the enquiry, the termination of the service of the respondent was illegal. Consequently, instead of reinstating him into service the Court directed the appellant-employer to pay him
compensation in a sum of Rs. 2.50 lakhs. Aggrieved by that order, this appeal has been filed.
5. It is true that the respondent was acquitted by the criminal court but acquittal does not automatically gives him the right to be reinstated into the service. It would still be open to the competent authority to take decision whether the delinquent Government servant can be taken into service or disciplinary action should be taken under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules or under the Temporary Service Rules. Admittedly, the respondent had been working as a temporary Government servant before he was kept under suspension. The termination order indicated the factum that he, by then, was under suspension. It is only a way of describing him as being under suspension when the order came to be passed but that does not constitute any stigma. Mere acquittal of Government employee does not automatically entitle the Government servant to reinstatement. As stated earlier, it would be open to the appropriate competent authority to take a decision whether the enquiry into the conduct is required to be done before directing reinstatement or appropriate action should be taken as per law, if otherwise, available. Since the respondent is only a temporary Government servant, the power being available under Rule 5(1) of the Rules, it is always open to the competent authority to invoke the said power and terminate the services of the employee instead of conducting the enquiry or to continue in service a Government servant accused of defalcation of public money. Reinstatement would be a charter for him to indulge with impunity in misappropriation of public money.
6. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court was clearly in error in directing payment of the compensation which amounts to premium for misconduct.
7. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the Division Bench stands set aside and that of the learned single Judge stands confirmed. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
*******