- (1.) The Rule is directed against the notice dated September 29, 1978 terminating the service of the petitioner with the expiry of the month of October,1975. It appears that the petitioner was initially a permanent employee under the Steel Controller and after his superannuation, the petitioner was appointed temporarily as a Planning Executive with effect from January 4, 1974, in the Billet Rerollers Committee but the said Billet Rerollers Committee became defunct and the petitioner's service was transferred to the Joint Plant Committee set up under Clause 17B of the Iron and Steel Control Order, 1966. The petitioner's case is that a Sub-Committee headed by one, Shri S. C. Roy, made a recommendation that if any staff of the Joint Plant Committee was though surplus then the deputationist to the said Joint Plant Committee should go first and thereafter the regular staff of the Joint Plant Committee was to go. The said recommendation was also accepted by the Joint Plant Committee. The petitioner contends that although a number of deputationists were allowed to continue even upto March 31, 1978 the petitioner's service was terminated by the said impugned notice with the expiry of the month of October, 1975, although the petitioner was not a deputationist, but as aforesaid, was a regular staff of the Joint Plant Committee. The petitioner contends that the said order of termination was made arbitrarily and against the aforesaid decision of the Joint Plant Committee. The petitioner also contends that without any just cause the petitioner was picked up although there were other juniors in service to the petitioner in the said Joint Plant Committee but their services were not terminated. The petitioner contends that such action is also made mala fide and on that score alone the order of termination should be set aside and the petitioner should be allowed to the pay and allowances at least upto March 31, 1976.
(2.) Mr. Bagchi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was a temporary Government servant and it is true that the service of a temporary employee can be terminated by giving due notice in accordance with the terms of contract and/or the Rules framed for such service. But Mr. Bagchi contends that even for a temporary employee, the employer cannot act arbitrarily in the matter of termination of service. He contends that in the instant case admittedly the petitioner was senior in service in the Joint Plant Committee to a good number of other employees similarly situate. But the service of other employees were retained but without any just cause the petitioner was singled out and his service was terminated by the impugned notice, Mr. Bagchi contends that in the aforesaid circumstances, the action taken against the petitioner is vitiated on the ground of discrimination and arbitrariness. In this connection Mr. Bagchi refers to a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court made in the case of (1) Rupinder Kaur v. Secretary to the Government of Punjab, reported in 1980(1) S.L.R. at page 710. In the said case it appears that Smt. Rupinder Kaur was a Stenographer but she was a temporary Government servant and her service was terminated by giving her a due notice. She complained that juniors to her in service were retained but she was singled out and as such the action was discriminatory and was mala fide on the ground of arbitrariness. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the decision held that the said Smt. Kaur and other Stenographers whose services were retained were similarly situated and there was no just cause for singling out Smt. Kaur when Smt. Kaur was senior to other temporary stenographers. The order of termination in the aforesaid circumstances, was set aside by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Mr. Bagchi contends that the facts and circumstances of the instant case are also similar. Mr. Bagchi submits that one Mr. A. T. Chakraborty who was also a retired Government servant was given temporary appointment in the Joint Plant Committee and his appointment was a few days after the petitioner's appointment but the said Shri A. T. Chakraborty was allowed to continue for a pretty long time even after the termination of the service of the petitioner. Mr. Bagchi contends that in the aforesaid circumstances it must be held that thee was no just cause for singling out the petitioner and the order of termination was passed mala fide and arbitrarily against the petitioner and on that score alone the said order should be quashed.
(3.) Mr. Mukul Gopal Mukherjee, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submits that appointments in Billet Rerollers Committee and/or Joint Plant Committee were given temporarily to different persons having expert knowledge in different branches from amongst superannuated Government servants. As a stop gap measure persons from other departments and concerns were also taken as deputationists is to do the expert works, required to be performed by the said Billet Rerollers Committee and/or Joint Plant Committee. Mr. Mukherjee submits that as a general principle it was accepted by the Joint Plant Committee that the deputationists should be released first but such general policy cannot stand as a bar in terminating the service of a temporary employee if it appears that the service of the said person was not then required and/or the said person was thought to be surplus in the Department. Mr. Mukherjee in this connection produced the service records and/or the personal files of various officers of the Joint Plant Committee including the service files of the petitioner and Mr. A. T. Chakraborty. It appears that Shri A. T. Chakraborty joined the Billet Reroller's Committee only few days after the petitioner. The said Shri A. T. Chakraborty was initially appointed as Accounts-cum-Administrative Officer and he was redesignated as Senior Accounts Officer with effect from April 30, 1975. It also appears that Lt.-Col. Grover who was the Chief Administrative Appraisal Officer went on tour some time in the month of October and Shri A. T. Chakraborty was asked to look after the duties and functions of the said Chief Administrative Officer during his absence. Mr. Mukherjee contends that the petitioner and the other officers of the Joint Plant Committee were not similarly situate and each of the said officers had different types of expert knowledge and the Department required their services for different types of work. Mr. Mukherjee submits that in the aforesaid circumstances, the decision made in Rupinder Kaur's case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In this connection Mr. Mukherjee also drew the attention of the Court of the personal file of the petitioner temporarily in the B. R. Committee, the petitioner and one Shri S. K. Gupta were given interviews but the Executive Secretary of the said B. R. Committee found the petitioner more suitable to be absorbed in the said B. R. Committee, but the suggestion of the Chairman that the selected candidate should be appointed as Accountant-cum-Administrative Officer was not accepted by him on the ground that the Accountant-cum-Administrative Officer must have a fair knowledge in Accountancy and the petitioner not having such knowledge should not be appointed as Accountant-cum-Administrative Officer. Mr. Mukherjee submits that as it was though expedient to release the service of one of the officers temporarily appointed in the said Joint Committee, the petitioner's service was terminated because it was though desirable to retain the service of the said Mr. A. T. Chakraborty who was qualified in Accountancy and whose services were needed more. For similar reasons, the services of deputationists were not then terminated and the general policy decision to release the deputationist; first could not be strictly adhered to Mr. Mukherjee submits that normally when an order of termination is passed against a temporary Government servant without attaching any stigma, the said Government servant cannot question the correctness of the decision until and unless it can be shown that the said order was passed mala fide for the purpose of inflicting punishment on the Government servant concerned. He submits that in the instant case, the temporary service of the petitioner was terminated by giving him a due notice and in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be contended that such action was taken with the sole motive of getting rid of the service of the petitioner. He also contends that as the Joint Plaint Committee consisted of employees having different types of expert knowledge none of such employees should be compared as comparable unit. Hence it cannot be contended that the order of terminating is vitiated by arbitrariness and/or discrimination.;