1999 JTR(SC) 1081
2000 10 SCC 311 ; 2000 SCC(L&S) 834 ; 2000 KHC 4274
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : U.C.Banerjee
State Of Haryana
Versus
Suman Dutta
Case No. : 5393 , 5394 of 1999
Date of Decision : 9/20/99
Granting an interim stay on a termination order in a writ petition is improper if it allows an employee to continue in service without a right, potentially leading to the usurpation of public office if the petition is ultimately dismissed.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
: Art.226
(A) Service Law - Termination of service - Interim stay - High Court erred in law in staying the order of termination as an interim measure in a pending writ petition - If an employee is allowed to continue in service by such interim order and the writ petition is ultimately dismissed, it would tantamount to usurpation of public office without any right to the same. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
An employee's services were terminated on the grounds of failing the necessary examination in shorthand and typing. The High Court granted an interim stay against the order of termination while the writ petition was pending.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in granting the interim stay. Allowing an employee to continue in service via an interim order, which may later be dismissed, results in the unauthorized occupation of a public office.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in granting an interim stay on the termination of an employee's services pending the disposal of a writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: Granting an interim stay on a termination order is legally erroneous if it allows an individual to continue in service without a right, as it may lead to the usurpation of public office should the writ petition be ultimately dismissed.
Result: Impugned order of the High Court staying the order of termination set aside.
Facts of the case:
An employee's services were terminated on the grounds of failing the necessary examination in shorthand and typing. The High Court granted an interim stay against the order of termination while the writ petition was pending.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in granting the interim stay. Allowing an employee to continue in service via an interim order, which may later be dismissed, results in the unauthorized occupation of a public office.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in granting an interim stay on the termination of an employee's services pending the disposal of a writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: Granting an interim stay on a termination order is legally erroneous if it allows an individual to continue in service without a right, as it may lead to the usurpation of public office should the writ petition be ultimately dismissed.
Result: Impugned order of the High Court staying the order of termination set aside.
G.B.PATTANAIK, J.
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THIS appeal by the State of Haryana is directed against an interim order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 10493 of 1998, staying the order of termination. The positive case of the State is that the respondent did not pass the necessary examination in shorthand and typing. We are not expressing any opinion as to whether the services of an employee could be terminated for not passing the shorthand and typewriting test, but we are clearly of the opinion that the High Court erred in law in staying the order of termination as an interim measure in the pending writ petition. By such interim order if an employee is allowed to continue in service and then ultimately the writ petition is dismissed, then it would tantamount to usurpation of public office without any right to the same. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court staying the order of termination. Needless to mention, the High Court will decide the writ petition on its own merits without being in any way influenced by our interfering with the impugned order.
(3) THE appeals stand disposed of accordingly.