1

   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION      

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)NO.11757  OF  2007                    

   STATE OF U.P. & ANR.                                                                          

... Petitioner(s)

                     Versus    RAM VINAI SINHA     ...  Respondent(s)

O R D E R  

Having regard to the explanation offered by the petitioners regarding the  

reason for the delay in filing the special leave petition, we are satisfied that sufficient  

grounds have been made out for condoning such delay and such delay is, therefore,  

condoned.

This special leave petition is directed against the judgment and order dated  

21st October,  2003  passed  by  the  Lucknow  Bench  of  the  Allahabad  High  Court  

dismissing the writ petition No.6244 of 1982 filed by the State of U.P. in which   the  

judgment and order dated 7th September, 1992, passed by the U.P. Public  Service  

Tribunal  setting aside the order of termination of the services of the respondent No.1  

issued by the State Government on 18th August, 1981, was challenged.

2

The respondent No.1 was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation  

department of the State Government on 14th May, 1973 on an ad hoc basis and his  

services were regularised on 20th March, 1980 from the date of his initial joining.

Subsequently, on 25th May, 1981, the respondent No.1 was trapped allegedly  

taking a bribe, as a consequence whereof, a case under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section  

5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered against him and he was  

taken into custody.  Subsequently, on 26th May, 1981, he was granted bail.  On 18th  

August, 1981, the State Government terminated the services of the respondent No. 1  

on the ground that his services were no more required.

The  said  order  of  termination  of  his  services  was  challenged  by  the  

respondent No. 1 before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, primarily on the ground  

that  the  same  had  been  passed  by  way  of  punishment  and  was  arbitrary  and  

unreasonable.  It was also submitted that such order had been passed without waiting  

for the outcome of the criminal proceedings,  which was still  pending.   One of the  

other grounds taken by the respondent No. 1 was that a large number of employees,  

who were junior  to  the respondent  No.  1  had been retained  in  service,  while  his  

services had been terminated.

By its  judgment and order dated 7th September, 1982, the Tribunal set aside  

the  order  of  termination  on  the  ground  that  from  the  circumstances  and  the  

submissions  advanced on behalf  of  the  parties,  it  clearly  emerged that  there  was

3

nothing adverse against the respondent, on the basis of which his services could have  

been terminated because of his involvement in a criminal case, which was made the  

sole basis for judging his suitability.  The learned Tribunal also held that in such a  

situation,  the order of  punishment was bad since  the procedures  indicated under  

Article 311(2) of the Constitution had not been adopted.

As mentioned hereinabove, the order of the Tribunal  was challenged before  

the High Court.  The High Court while considering the matter also took note of the  

submissions  made  on  behalf  of  the  petitioners  herein  that  the  main  reason  for  

termination of the services of the respondent No. 1 was on account of his involvement  

in the criminal case.    The High Court recorded in its judgment that once it was  

admitted by the writ petitioners that the respondent No. 1 was declared unsuitable on  

the  basis  of  his  arrest,  then  the  order  of  termination  could  not  be  termed  as  

termination simpliciter.  Thereafter applying the well-established principle that while  

discharging an employee with a stigma,  an opportunity of hearing was required to be  

given to him, which was not given in the instant case, the High Court upheld and  

confirmed the  order of the Tribunal.

The Special Leave Petition has been filed against the said order of the High  

Court and appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. S.R. Singh urged that whatever  

may have been submitted before the Tribunal or the High Court could not have an  

overriding effect over the language used in the order of termination itself.  According

4

to him, the order of termination clearly indicates that  the termination of the services  

of the respondent No. 1 was without any stigma and was a termination simpliciter.

Mr. Singh submitted that having regard to the nature of the facts involved,  

the High Court should have interfered with the order of the Tribunal and should  

have set aside the said order.

On the other hand, Mr. Nagender Rai, learned senior counsel, appearing for  

the respondent submits that in view of the finding of the Tribunal, as well as the High  

Court that the termination of the services of the respondent No. 1 was not a simple  

termination, but termination on the basis of a decision arrived at on account of the  

involvement of the respondent No. 1 in the criminal case, the order passed, both by  

the Tribunal and also of the High Court, was not required to be interfered with.

As  per  the  order  of  termination,  the  services  of  the  respondent  were  

terminated on the ground that his services were not required.  At the same time, it is  

not disputed that his juniors were retained in service.  Termination of the services of  

the respondent while retaining his juniors in service was sought to be justified on the  

ground that he was found unsuitable in view of the criminal case registered against  

him.  Hence, it was not a termination simpliciter.  But before holding that he was  

unsuitable and terminating his services, no notice was issued to the respondent and  

no enquiry was conducted and he was not given any opportunity of  being heard.  

Therefore, the impugned termination of service was in violation of the principles of

5

natural justice, illegal and arbitrary.  It also offended the provisions in Art. 311(2) of  

the Constitution of India.  Hence, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order of  

termination  of  service  of  the  respondent  and  the  High  Court  rightly  refused  to  

interfere  with  the  order  of  the  Tribunal.   The  fact  that  the  respondent  was  

subsequently convicted by the criminal court and the matter is pending in appeal will  

not  change  the  legal  position  regarding  the  illegality  of  the  impugned  order  of  

termination of service.

  In that view of the matter, we see no reaason to interfere with the order of  

the High Court.  The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.

              ...................J.

                                 (ALTAMAS KABIR)   

             ...................J.                          (CYRIAC JOSEPH)  

New Delhi, March 17, 2009.