- (1.) MADAN Mohan Bag the respondent/petitioner herein is a citizen of India. He was temporarily appointed to the post of Cashier-cum-Clerk in the Directorate of Commercial Taxes (Entry Tax Branch), Government of West Bengal by the Directorate of Entry Tax and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal in the scale of Rs. 125-3-140-4-200 plus admissible allowances on the 11th of November, 1970. This was done by an office order dated 11th of November, 1970. On that date the petitioner was given a letter which stated, inter alia, as follows-"the appointment to him hereunder is subject to verification of his character and antecedents by the police and medical examination of his health by the prescribed medical authority". The appointment was originally for a period of three months from the date of joining The respondent/ petitioner, however, continued up to 30th of July, 1971. On that date he received the following communication:- "your term of employment will not be renewed beyond 31. 7. 71 and as such you will not be allowed to work beyond that date". In his application to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner stated that he had come to know that the termination of his service had been ordered due to adverse police report against him The petitioner also annexed to his petition a letter written to the Additional Director of Entry Taxes, West Bengal in which he stated that as far as he could express he had no political activities and the police also had no charge against him. He alleged, further, in that letter that the adverse report might have been due to jealousy of some! persons. It appears from the annexure to the petition that on 19th of August, 1971 the Additional Director of Entry Taxes had written a letter to the Deputy Inspector General of Police by which he forwarded the representation made by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said communication dated 30th July, 1971 the petitioner moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of termination and on 17th of March, 1972 a rule nisi was issued by this Court. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents State authorities it was stated that the petitioner had worked in his employment till the Director considered him unsuitable for employment under Government on the basis of adverse police report. It was, further, stated that there was no question of termination because the petitioner's appointment was temporary but there was no further extension beyond 31st of July 1971 because the D. I. G. I. B. West Bengal returned the verification role of the petitioner with the following remark : -"the subject is considered unsuitable for employment under Government". The respondents have, further, stated that it was in the aforesaid circumstances that the term of appointment was decided not to be further extended and it has been stated that the decision not to extend the term of appointment was taken by the Director of Entry Taxes on the basis of the police report. The rule came up for hearing before Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J. on the 10th of April, 1974. The learned Judge was of the opinion mat as the report of the police had not been made known to the petitioner there had been violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the learned Judge directed by the order dated 10th of April, 1976 that the adverse report against the petitioner must be shown to the petitioner and the petitioner should be given an opportunity to make representation against such police report and the learned Judge, further, directed that the appointing authority should either renew or terminate the petitioner's term of employment after considering the representation of the petitioner. He, further, ordered that the petitioner would not be entitled to any salary for the past period but in case the petitioner's appointment was made the same would be considered to be a new appointment. The respondent's State authorities made an application before the learned Judge for clarification and/or modification of the order dated 10th of April, 1974. By an order dated 17th of February, 1976 the learned Judge directed as follows:- "i clarify my order to this extent that within three weeks from the date the respondents shall deliver relevant extracts of the police report to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner shall make a representation on the basis of the report and on considering the said representation the appointing authority shall consider the question of fresh appointment". Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the state authorities have filed this appeal.
(2.) ON behalf of the appellants learned Junior Standing Counsel contended before us that the appointment of the petitioner was temporary. The petitioner had no right to continue if the petitioner respondent's appointment had not been extended. It was, further, urged that the order not extending the term of the respondent/petitioner did not exfacie contain any stigma and therefore the Court was precluded from examining whether any punishment had been inflicted upon the respondent/petitioner. It was, further, submitted that in case of public employments it was common knowledge that police verifications are made and if it is ordered that reports of verification should be made known to the party concerned then that would throw an impossible burden on the administration.
(3.) IT cannot be disputed that the appointment of the respondent/petitioner was temporary. The petitioner had no right, statutory or otherwise, to continue in his employment beyond the period he was allowed to do. It cannot also be disputed that the respondent/petitioner had no right statutory or constitutional to claim extension of his employment. The order or the communication informing the petitioner that his period of service would not be extended as noticed before does not contain any stigma. Where there are no express words in the order itself which would throw any stigma on the government servant the Court cannot look into the background resulting in the passing of such order in order to discover whether some kind of stigma could be inferred. See the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of I. N. Saksena v. State of M. P. , A. I. R. 1967 S. C. page 1264. In the case of State of U. P. v. Ram Chandra 1976 (2) Services Law Reporter page 869 the supreme Court observed that the order to which exception was taken ill that case was exfacie an order of termination of service simpliciter. It did not cast any stigma on the person nor did it visit the person concerned with any evil consequences nor was it founded on any misconduct. In those circumstances the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the party could not invite the court to go into the motive behind the order and claim the protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court was, further, of the opinion that where there were no express words in the impugned order itself which threw any stigma on the government servant the Court should not delve into secretarial files to discover whether some kind of stigma could be inferred on such research. As noticed before in this case the impugn ed communication ex facie does not contain any stigma. Furthermore in this case there is no question of violation of any statutory or constitutional right in not extending the period of employment of the respondent/ petitioner. Therefore no question of setting aside the impugned communication arises.;