H.L. Gokhale, C.J. - (1.) THIS appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated 22.7.1992 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein.
(2.) MR. D.K. Arora, learned Additional Advocate General and MRs. Sangeeta Chandra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel have appeared for the appellants. MR. Sandeep Dixit has appeared for the respondent herein. The short facts leading to this appeal are this wise. The respondent herein was appointed as a Daily Wage Cleaner under the Directorate of Civil Aviation and was brought on pay scale in December, 1983. In June, 1984, he was promoted to the post of Junior Clerk since the person in that post one S.M. AN was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk. The promotion order specifically stated that this was a temporary promotion. He was further promoted to the post of Flight Clerk, which was also a temporary promotion though in the pay scale of Rs.430-685 with effect from 1.2.1985. It is during this service as Flight Clerk that the respondent was issued warnings and notices with respect to his work on a few occasions. Ultimately, his services were discontinued by an order of termination simplicitor dated 11.2.1986 by giving him one month's pay in lieu of one month's notice. Being aggrieved by this termination, he filed a writ petition bearing No. 1447 of 1986, which came to be allowed by a learned Single Judge, vide judgment and order dated 22.7.1992. The learned Single Judge took the view that the successive notices and charge-sheets issued to the respondent amounted to a foundation for a misconduct and, therefore, a full-fledged enquiry was required within the meaning of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and in consonance with the principles of natural justice.
(3.) BEING aggrieved by that judgment and order, this appeal has been filed. The appeal was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by a short order just referring to three judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of (j) MathewP. Thomas v. Kerala State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd., (2003) 3 SCC 263, (ii) Pavanenora Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, (2002) 1 SCC 520 and (iii) Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. S. N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta, (1999) 3 SCC 60. The respondent carried the matter to the Apex Court. The Apex Court interfered with the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court for the reason that reasons were not given in the judgment as to how the ratio of these judgments applied to the present case. The matter was sent down to this Court to decide it afresh. Mr. Arora, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the status of the respondent at all material times was of a temporary employee. In the post, which he occupied as a Flight Clerk, he was not in any permanent capacity. As per Annexure C-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants before the learned Single Judge, the tenure of post on which the respondent was working was extended and was available until 28.2.1986. Prior thereto he has been terminated from his service by the order dated 11.2.1986. He submitted that there was no stigma attached in the termination of the respondent and that the termination was fully permissible under Rule 3 (1) of the D.P. Temporary Government Servants (Terminationof Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1975'). For the sake of record, we reproduce the Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules, which is to the following effect: "3. Termination of service. - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any existing rules or orders on the subject, the services of a Government servant in temporary service shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority, or by the appointing authority to the Government servant., (2) The period of notice shall be one month: Provided that the services of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith, and on such termination the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances, if any, for the period of the notice or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services: Provided further that it shall be open to the appointing authority to relieve a Government servant without any notice or accept notice for a shorter period, without requiring the Government servant to pay any penalty in lieu of notice: Provided also that such notice given by the Government servant against whom a disciplinary proceeding is pending or contemplated shall be effective only if it is accepted by the appointing authority, provided in the case of a contemplated disciplinary proceedings, the Government servant is informed of the non- acceptance of his notice before the expiry of that notice.";