R.M.Sahai, Om Prakash, JJ. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as Hindi Translator on the post created under the All India Radio Station. The contention of the petitioner is that to his surprise his services were terminated with effect from 1-9-1992 by the respondent No. 2 saying that his services are no longer required. Then the petitioner contacted the Station Director to know as to why the termination order was passed and then be was informed that there was an adverse report from the police and the District Masbate , Allahabad against him about his antecedents. The petitioner was informed that he was a member of the Progressive Students Organisation, Allahabad which according to the District authorities was affiliated with C. P. I. (M L.). Thereupon the petitioner protested against the action of the respondent No 2 and he stated that atleast an opportunity of being heard should have been afforded to him before terminating his services It is also contended by the petitioner that the Progressive Students Organisation, Allahabad was not a banded organisation and it was not affiliated with the C. P. I. (M. L.). On these facts, the petitioner says that the termination order is a punitive order and the same is illegal as it was passed by the respondent No. 2 without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Station Director, All India Radio Rampur (respondent No 2) stating that the termination of the services of the petitioner is simplicitor without any charges being levelled against the petitioner. This being so, the respondent No. 2 stated in the counter affidavit that there was no need to give any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The question for consideration is whether the order terminating the services is simplicitor or punitive in nature. If it is punitive in nature, then the petitioner, though a temporary hand, will also be entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Now there is settled law that to see the reality, the court can tear out the veil and the termination order will not be taken on its face value. Our attention has been drawn to Annexure-i to the Rejoinder Affidavit. This is a letter dated 15 9-1982 which was addressed by the Station Director. Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, counsel for the petitioner, says that it was addressed to the District Magistrate, Allahabad. From this letter, it is manifest that the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 18-9-1972 on the basis of the police report. Learned counsel for the opposite parties wanted to verify the fact whether the aforesaid letter (Annexure-1 to the Rejoinder affidavit) was addressed by the Station Director. Several opportunities were afforded to him to verify this fact but nothing has been said otherwise by him before us in regard to this letter. In view of the said letter, it cannot be said that the order terminating the services of the petitioner is simplicitor. On the face of it, it may appear to be innocuous, but in reality it is not so. The services of the petitioner were terminated on account of the adverse report of the police, and, therefore, the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner is violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, in as much as the same was passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard or without any inquiry. Sri Dwivedi then relied on the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rama-shanker Raghuvanshi and another, AIR 1983 SC 34. In this case, the respondent was a teacher employed in the municipal school which was taken over by the Government in June, 1971. The respondent was absorbed in Government service by alia order dated February 28, 1982. The order of the subject to verification of antecedents inter alia. The services of the respondent were terminated on the basis of the police report that he had taken part in RSS and Jansangh activities in the past. The validity of the said order was challenged by the respondent and the matter ultimately came up before the Supreme Court It was held by the Supreme Court that the whole business of seeking police report, about the political faith, belief and association and the past political activity of a candidate for public employment is repugnant to the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution and entirely misplaced in a democratic republic dedicated to the ideals set forth in the preamble of the Constitution. It offends the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to deny employment to individual because of his past political affinities, unless such affinities are considered likely to affect the integrity and efficiency of the individuals service.;