# RAM GOPAL CHATURVEDI v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

- **Citation:** [1970] 1 S.C.R. 472
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-04-29
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ram-gopal-chaturvedi-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-4817
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

472
RAM GOPAL CHATURVEDI
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
April 29, 1969
[S. M. Snuu, R. s. BACHAWAT AND v. RAMASWAMI, II.]
B
Constitution of India. Art, 311 and A.rt. 320--Services of temporary
6<JVtrnmtnt servant-Terminated without consulting Public Service Com·
mission-No notic£, no opportunity to show cause-On advice of High
Co11rt-Validity.
Mc;dhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-perm•·
ntnt Strvice) R11/es, 1960--Whtthtr hit by Arts. 14 & 16 of tht Constit•·
ti on.
The appellant was appointed tcmpor'1rily, to the judicial service in
the respondent.State.
On comP.'aints, that the appellant was associatin1
with a girl, and was ta.king bribes, the Chief Justice of the High Court
enquired into them and the High Court recommended to the State Govern·
ment to terminate the appellant's service.
The Government passed an
order under r.
12 of the
M. P. Gover.iment
Servants
(Temporary
and Quasi-permanent Service) Rules, 1960 staling only that the scrvic.s
of the appellant are terminated from a specified day.
The appellaat
filed a w'rit petition in the High Court against this order. The High Court
dismiased the petition.
In appeal, to this Court, the appellant contended
that (i) r. 12 was violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution u it
oonferrcd arbitrary and unguided discretion to the Government~ (ii) tlae
impugned order was irivalid as it was passed without consulting the State
Public Service Commission under Art. 320(3)(c) of the
Comtilution;
(iii) the order was passed by way of punishment without givinji ~
appellant an oppoounity to show cause against the prC'pOSCd action and wu
therefore violaltve of Art. 311 of the Constitution; (iv) tbe order was In
violation of the principles of natural justice, as no charge-sheet wu SCl'Ved
nor any departmental inquiry beld; and (v) the State Government ctrcd Ui
blindly following the recommendations of the High Court. Repelling !he
contentions, this Court,
HELD : The appellant was a temporary goverrunent servant and was
in not quasi-permanent service.
His services could be tenninated CMI
one n_wnth's notice unde'r r. 12.
There was no provision in the order et
appointment or in any agreement that his service could
not
be ,.
terminated.
(i) Rule 12 applies to all temporary government servant.. who are ...
in quasi-permanent serviet'.
All 1uch government servants are tree•
alike.
The argument that r. 12 conferred an arbitrary and unguided •-
ccelion was devoid of any merit. The services of a temporary governm.t
IOl'Vant may be tcrmioated on one month's notiee whenever the governme.t
thinks it necessary or expedient to do so for administrative reasons. It
was impossible to define before hand all the circumstances in which t~e
discretion could be excrci9ed.
The discretion was necessarily left to tAe
government.
[4758)
(ii) The provisions of Art. 320(3) (c) were not mandatory and did
not confer anv riahts on the public servant and that the absence of coa·
1uttation with the State Puhlic Service Commission did not afford him a
ca111e Of action. [475G)
c
D
E
F'
11
'
:'-
i•
RAM OOPAL v. M. P. STATE (Bachawat. J.)
4/, 3
A/
State of U.P. v. M. L. Srivastava, (1958] S.C.R. 533, followed.
(iii) On the face of it, the drder did not cast any stigma on the
appellant's character or integrity nor did it visit him with any evil conaequences It was not puaed by way of punishment and the provisions of
Art, 311 were not attracted. [476H].
It was immaterial that the otder was preceded by an informal inquiry
B -
into the appellant's conduct with a view to ascertain whether he would
be retained in service. [4.77A]
c
D
E
F
G
State of Punjab v. Sukh Ra; Bahadur, (1968]_ 3 S.C.R. 234, followed.
(iv) In tiie present case, the impugned order did not involve any ele·
meat o( punishment nor did it deprive the appellant of any vested right to
any office, The appellant was a temporary government servant and had no
right to hold the office. The state government had the right to terminate bis
services under r

## Text

472
RAM GOPAL CHATURVEDI
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
April 29, 1969
[S. M. Snuu, R. s. BACHAWAT AND v. RAMASWAMI, II.]
B
Constitution of India. Art, 311 and A.rt. 320--Services of temporary
6<JVtrnmtnt servant-Terminated without consulting Public Service Com·
mission-No notic£, no opportunity to show cause-On advice of High
Co11rt-Validity.
Mc;dhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-perm•·
ntnt Strvice) R11/es, 1960--Whtthtr hit by Arts. 14 & 16 of tht Constit•·
ti on.
The appellant was appointed tcmpor'1rily, to the judicial service in
the respondent.State.
On comP.'aints, that the appellant was associatin1
with a girl, and was ta.king bribes, the Chief Justice of the High Court
enquired into them and the High Court recommended to the State Govern·
ment to terminate the appellant's service.
The Government passed an
order under r.
12 of the
M. P. Gover.iment
Servants
(Temporary
and Quasi-permanent Service) Rules, 1960 staling only that the scrvic.s
of the appellant are terminated from a specified day.
The appellaat
filed a w'rit petition in the High Court against this order. The High Court
dismiased the petition.
In appeal, to this Court, the appellant contended
that (i) r. 12 was violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution u it
oonferrcd arbitrary and unguided discretion to the Government~ (ii) tlae
impugned order was irivalid as it was passed without consulting the State
Public Service Commission under Art. 320(3)(c) of the
Comtilution;
(iii) the order was passed by way of punishment without givinji ~
appellant an oppoounity to show cause against the prC'pOSCd action and wu
therefore violaltve of Art. 311 of the Constitution; (iv) tbe order was In
violation of the principles of natural justice, as no charge-sheet wu SCl'Ved
nor any departmental inquiry beld; and (v) the State Government ctrcd Ui
blindly following the recommendations of the High Court. Repelling !he
contentions, this Court,
HELD : The appellant was a temporary goverrunent servant and was
in not quasi-permanent service.
His services could be tenninated CMI
one n_wnth's notice unde'r r. 12.
There was no provision in the order et
appointment or in any agreement that his service could
not
be ,.
terminated.
(i) Rule 12 applies to all temporary government servant.. who are ...
in quasi-permanent serviet'.
All 1uch government servants are tree•
alike.
The argument that r. 12 conferred an arbitrary and unguided •-
ccelion was devoid of any merit. The services of a temporary governm.t
IOl'Vant may be tcrmioated on one month's notiee whenever the governme.t
thinks it necessary or expedient to do so for administrative reasons. It
was impossible to define before hand all the circumstances in which t~e
discretion could be excrci9ed.
The discretion was necessarily left to tAe
government.
[4758)
(ii) The provisions of Art. 320(3) (c) were not mandatory and did
not confer anv riahts on the public servant and that the absence of coa·
1uttation with the State Puhlic Service Commission did not afford him a
ca111e Of action. [475G)
c
D
E
F'
11
'
:'-
i•
RAM OOPAL v. M. P. STATE (Bachawat. J.)
4/, 3
A/
State of U.P. v. M. L. Srivastava, (1958] S.C.R. 533, followed.
(iii) On the face of it, the drder did not cast any stigma on the
appellant's character or integrity nor did it visit him with any evil conaequences It was not puaed by way of punishment and the provisions of
Art, 311 were not attracted. [476H].
It was immaterial that the otder was preceded by an informal inquiry
B -
into the appellant's conduct with a view to ascertain whether he would
be retained in service. [4.77A]
c
D
E
F
G
State of Punjab v. Sukh Ra; Bahadur, (1968]_ 3 S.C.R. 234, followed.
(iv) In tiie present case, the impugned order did not involve any ele·
meat o( punishment nor did it deprive the appellant of any vested right to
any office, The appellant was a temporary government servant and had no
right to hold the office. The state government had the right to terminate bis
services under r. 12 without issuing any notice to the appellant to show
cause against the prop0$ed action.
[477H]
( v) The government rightly terminated the services, following the
advice tendered by the High Court. The High Court is vested with the
control over the subordinate judiciary. If the High Court found that the
appellant was not a. lit person to be retained in service, it could properly
ask the goverilinent to termi11ate bis services.
[478B]
State of ·wm Bengal v.
N. N; .Bagchi, [1966]
1 S.C.R. 771,
followed.
I.<
State of Orism v. Dr. (Mis.I) Binapani Dei & Ors. (1967] 2 S.C.R.
625 and Ridge v. Baldwin, (1964] A.C. 40, referred to.
CIVIL A,J>PELLATE JURISDICTION : ·Civil Appeal No. 712 of
1966.
.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated July 27, 1964
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 272 of
1964.
S. C. Chatur\'edi, K. Mehta and M. V. Goswami, for the appellant.
I. N. Shroff, for the respolldent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ba"bawat, J. The appellant was a temporary Civil Judge il1
Madhya Pradesh. On March 14, 1961 an order was issued i•
the name of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh State that the appellant "is appointed temporarily,
until further orders,
as Civil
Judge", Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants
(Temporary and Quasi-permanent Service) Kules, 1960 providH
ed:-
.
"12{a) Subject to any provision contained in the order
of appointment or in any agreement between the gov-
474
'--.SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] l S.C.R.
ernment and the temporary government servant, the service of a temporary government servant,who is not in
.<:juasi-permanent service shall be liable to termination at
any time by notice in Writing given either by the govern-
' mcnt servant to the appointing authority of liy the appointing authority to the Government servant·
.
'
Provide j that the services of any such goverrunenf
servant may be terminated forthwith by piiyment to him
of a sum equivalent fo the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice, or as the case
may be, for the period by which such notice falls short
•of one month ur any agreed longer period
Provided further that the paymenl of allowances shall
be subject to tlie condiiions under which such ·allowances
are admissible.
, , ., (b) The-periods of suc!i notice shall be one month unJ Jess. otherwise aereed between the Government and the
Government servant."
.
.
Dn· March 25, 1964 an order was issued by and in the name
Of the Governor terminating the appellant's services.· The order
stated:-
"The service of Shri Ram Gopal Chaturvedi, temporary Civil Judge, Waidhan, !Ire terminated with effect
from the 1st June 1964, forenoon."'
The appellant filed a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High
Conrt for ·quashing the order dated March 25, 1964. The High
Cou,rt summarily dismissed the petition. It held that the impugned
order was not by way of punishment and that the appellant's
services were liable to be terminated under the aforesaid rule 12
on one month's notice. Tlie appellant has filed the present appeal
after obtaining. special leave.
I
The appellant .wps a. temporary government servant and was
not in quasi-permal}~nt service. His services could be terr,n!natc:4
·on one month's no!ice under r.· 112.
There was ng provis10n m·
the order ,of appointment or in any agreement that )!is services
could not be .. so terminated ..
Counsel for the appellant submitted that rule 12 was unconstitutional as it was framed ..yithput consulting the State Public
·service (',ommission and the Higfi Court. The contention raises
-mixed questions of law ap.d fact' It was not raised in the High·
A
B
c
E
F
G
H
•
'
J:
"f
. ..
;
'
1
RAM OOPAL v. M. P. STATE (Bachawat, J.)
47'i
A
Court, and we indicated in the course of arguments that th appellant could not be allowed to raise it in this Court for th< ir' t
time.
f,
c
n
E
F
G
II
Counsel next submitted that rule 12 was violative of arts. 14
and 16 of the Constitution. There is no merit in this contention.
Rule 12 applies to an temporary government servants who are
not in quasi-permanent service. ·All such government servants
are treated alike. The argument that rule 12 confers an arbitrary
and unguided discretion is devoid of any merit. The services of
a temporary government servant
may
be terminated on 9ne
month's notice whenever the government thinks it necessary or
expedient to do so for administrative reasons.
It is impossible
to define before-hand all the circumstances in which the discretion
can be. exercised. The discretion was necessarily left to the government.
It was argued that the appellant's services could not be terminated on one month's notice as (a) his confirmation was recommended by the High Court after the expiry of the probationary
period and (b) the advertisement dated September 9, 1960 inviting applications. for the temporary posts. of civil judges did not ·
specifically mentioned that their services could be so terminated.
The point that the High Coμrt had recommended the appellant's
confirmation· was not raised in the High Court and cannot be allowed
to
be
ralSed
in
this
Court
for
the
first
time.
The
appellant's
services
were
subject
to
the
relevant
rules
and
could
be
terminated
on
one ·
month's notice under rule 12.
It fs immaterial that the advertisement did not specifically mentioned that his services could be so
terminated.
It was argued that the impugned order was invalid as it was.
passed without consulting the State ,Public Service Commission
under Art. 320(2)(<:) of the Constitution. There is no merit in
this contention. · 'fhe case ol State of U.P. v. M. L. Srivastava(')
decided that the provisions of Art. 320(3)(c) were not mandatory
and did not confer any rights on the public servant and that theabsence of consultation with the State Public Service Commission ·
did not afforu him a cause of action.
. . '•
It was next argued that the in)pugned order was passed by
way of punishment without giving the appellant an opportunity
to show cause against the proposed action and was therefore violative cf Art. 311 of tJ!ie Constitution. In this connection, counsel
for the appellant dreW our attention to the statement of case filed ·
on behalf of the respOndent. It appears that ther.e were complaints
(I) (1958) S.C.R. 533.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 1 S.C.R.
that the appellant was associating with a young girl named Miss
Laxmi Surve against the wishes of her father and other members
of her family. The Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh made inquiries into the matter and on February 19, 1954 he admonished the
:1ppellant for this disreputable conduct.
On his return to Jabalpur on February 28, 1964 the Chief Justice dictated the following note:-
··ouring my recent visit to Gwalior, I probed into
the matter of Shri R. G. Chaturvedi, Special Magisfrate (Moto• Vehicle~). Gwalior, giving shelter to a girl
named Kumari Laxmi Surve, the daughter of a Chowkid Jr employed in the J.C. Mills Gwalior. The enquiry
made by me revealed that Shri Chaturvedi has been
associating with this girl for over a year and his relations with her are not at all innocent. He is sheltering
and supporting Miss Surve against the wishes of her
father and other members of her family.
This is evident from the fact that on 14th December 1963, when
the girl was at the residence of Shri Chaturvedi and
when her younger brother came to rake her back, his
house was stormed by a mob of 300 to 400 persons. A
report of this incident was also recorded in the Roznamcha-Am of Lashlrnr Kotwali.
The statement published by Miss Surve in some newspapers published from
Gwalior explaining his action and her relation with her
parents is significant. In that statement Miss Surve gave
her address as 'C/ o. Shri Chaturvedi'. That the statement is one inspired by Shri Chaturvedi is obvious
enoui:h.
Shri Chaturvedi is still maintaining the girl.
Shri Chaturvedi did not enjoy good reputation at Morena
and Kolaras where he was posted before his posting at
Gwalior.
Shri Tlajpai. District Judge, Gwalior, also
informed me that Shri Chaturvedi was not honest and
that in collaboration with the Traffic Inspector he has
taken money from accused persons in many cases under
the Motor Vehicles Act."
!\o charge-sheet was served on the appellant nor was any department~! inquiry held against him. On March IQ, 1964 the Madhya
Pradesh High Court passed a resolution that the State Governmen: shoul? terminate the appellant's services. Having regard to
this resolu11on the State Government passed the impugned order
Jated March 25, 1964.
On the face of it, the order did not
cast any stigma on the appellant's character or integrity nor did
it visit him with any evil consequences.
It was not passed by
way of punishment and the provisions of Art. 311
were not
attrac!ed.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
RAM GOPAL v. M. P. STATE (Bachawat, J.)
477
It was immaterial that the order was preceded by an informal
inquiry into the appellant's conduct with a view to ascertain whether he· should be retained in service. As was pointed out in Tht
State 'of Punjab v. Sukh Raj Bahadur(') :-
"An order of termination of service in unexceptionable· form preceded by an enquiry launched by the superior authorities only to ascertain whether the public servant should be retained in service, does not attract the
operation of Article 311 of the Constitution."
It was next argued that the impugned order was in violation
of the principles of natural justice and in this connection reliance
was placed on the decision of this Court in State of Orissa v. Dr.
(Miss) Birrapani Del & Ors.(') and Ridge v. Baldwin("). In Binapani's Case the appellant was an assistant surgeon in the Orissa
medical sei:.vice. The State governnfent accepted the date of birth
~ven by her on joining the service. L.ater the government refixed
the date of her birth on ex parte inquicy and passed an order
compulsorily retiring her. The Court held that its order was invalid and was liable to be quashed. The appellant as the holder
of an office in the medical service had the right to continue in
sorvice.
According to the rules made under Art. 30~ she could
aot be ren.loved from the office before superannuation except for
:ood and sufficient reasons. 'The ex parte order was in derogation of her vested. rights and could not be passed without giving
her an opportooity ol bein~ heard. In the present case, the irnpuened order did not depnve the appellant of any vested right.
The appellant was a temporary government servant and had no
ri&ltt to bold the office. The State government had the right to
terminate his services under rule 12 without issuing any notice to
the appellant to show cause against the proposed action.
In
Ridge v. Baldwin('} the House of Lords by majority held that the
order of dismissal of a chief constable on the ground of neglect
of duty without informing him of the charge made against him
and giving him an opportunity of being heard was in contravention of the principles , of natural justice and was liable to be
quashed. Section 191 of the Municipal Corporations Act. 1882
provided that the watch committee might at any time suspend and
dismiss any borough constable whom they thought negligent in the
discharge of his duty or otherwise unfit for the same. The chief
constable had the right to hold his office and before depriving him
of this right the watch committee was required to conform to the
principles of natural justice. The order of dismissal visited him
H . with the Joss of office and involved an element of punishment for
the offences committed. In the present case, the impugned order
(I) [1968] 3 S.C.R 234.
(2) [1967} 2 S.C.R 625.
(3) [1964] A.C. 40.
4 7 ·-·
SUPREME COUllT ~EPORTS
[ 1970] I s.c.tt.
dk' .wt involve any clement of punishment nar did It depi¥e the
appclb:u of any vcstea right to any office.
It was next argued that the State Government blindly followed
the rc,ummendations of the High Court.
We find no merit in
this ar~ur.1ent. The State government properly followed those re·
commrndations. The High Court is vested with the control over
the subordinate judiciary, see The State of West Bengal v. N. N.
Bagchi,( 1). If the Hi,gh Court found that the appellant was not a
fit per'"" w be retained in service, it could properly ask the gov·
crn~.c:;t !O terminate his sef'lices. Following the advice tendered
by the lligh Court, the government rightly terminated his services
und~r rule 12.
• In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order
as to costs.
Y.P.
Appeal dismisud.
(I) (1966) I S.C.R. 771.
Ll3Sup.Cl(NP)69-2,500-2·~·7()-GIPF.
A
B
c