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

PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P.& ORS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT. KAMIA DEVI & ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/05/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. FAIZAN UDDIN (J) G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (4) 548        JT 1996 (5)   595  1996 SCALE  (5)10

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties.      Though the  respondent was  appointed on  February  14, 1972 on  ad hoc  basis, she  was posted  at different placed during  which   period  she  remained  either  on  leave  or absconded from duty, except joining the places nearer to her native place  Lakhimpur Kheri. Consequently, authorities had taken action  on September 23, 1980 to terminate her service in terms  of  letter  of  appointment.  The  respondent  had approached the  Tribunal for  reinstatement with back wages. The Tribunal  has set aside the order of termination holding that the  termination is violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution since  no enquiry  was  conducted  against  the respondent. The  same came to be upheld by the High Court in the impugned order in Writ Petition No.1589(SS)/94 passed on April 5, 1994.      The question,  therefore, is:  whether it  is necessary for the  Government to  conduct an  enquiry as  contemplated under Article  311(2) read  with the statutory rules? In the State  of  U.P.,  there  are  statutory  rules,  viz.,  U.P. Temporary Government Services Rules, 1975. Rule 14(a) of the said Rules  provides  for  termination  of  the  service  of temporary Government  servant either with one month’s notice or pay in lieu thereof.      Under  these   circumstances,   when   the   Government exercised the  statutory power,  the need to conduct enquiry as  contemplated   under   Article   311(2)   by   necessary implication got  obviated. The  High Court,  therefore,  was wrong in holding that the enquiry under Article 311(2) needs to be  conducted to  terminate  the  services  of  even  the temporary Government servant.      The appeal  is accordingly allowed. However, any salary paid to  the respondent  during the  continuance in services

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

pursuant to  the interim  direction would  not be  recovered from her. There will be no order as to costs.