http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SHRI HUKAM CHAND KHUNDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/10/1995

BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) NANAVATI G.T. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (6) 534        1995 SCALE  (6)125

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The  order   of  termination  of  the  service  of  the petitioner was  challenged by  filing an  application  under Section 19  of the  Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 before the  Central   Administrative  Tribunal,   New  Delhi.  Such application has  been dismissed  by the  impugned order. The applicant was  appointed Judge, Chandigarh, vide order dated March 17,  1982. He  was continuing  in temporary service on probation put  it appears  that his  service was  not  found satisfactory and  as  a  matter  of  fact  on  a  number  of occasions he  was found  by the successive judicial officers under whom  the applicant was working that his integrity was questionable. Considering his service records, the temporary service of the applicant has been terminated.      Mr. P.P.  Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that if termination has in fact been effected  by way of punishment, the real purpose of the order and not the outer form of it, is required to be looked into by  piercing the  veil, He has submitted that if on the score of  misconduct, the  service,  is  terminated  without holding by departmental proceeding and giving the petitioner a chance of showing cause, the order of    parte termination of service  on the ground of misconduct is illegal and void. Even in  the case  of temporary  service, the  provisions of Article 311  of the  Constitution of India is applicable. In support of  such contention,  reference has been made to the decision of this Court in Jarnail Singh and Ors. etc. versus State of Punjab (1986 (2) SCR 1022). It, however, appears to us that  no discriminatory  treatment has  been meted out to the petitioner  as was done to the employee concerned in the said decision. It appears that the service of the petitioner was  found   unsatisfactory  for   the   reasons   indicated hereinbefore. Since  the petitioner  was holding a temporary service and  was  on  probation,  an  order  of  termination simplicitor has  been passed  without attaching  any  stigma against   him.   As   the   service   records   were   found

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

unsatisfactory,  the   termination  order   cannot  be  held arbitrary and  dapricious. In the aforesaid facts, we do not thing that in reality an order of punishment has been passed against  the   petitioner  in  the  clocks  or  pretence  of termination simplicitor  without  holding  any  departmental proceeding   thereby   violating.   Article   311   of   the Constitution. We  therefore. find  no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.