# STATE OF HA~YANA AND OTIIERS v. ~JINDRA SAREEN

- **Citation:** [1972] 2 S.C.R. 452
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-11-22
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-ha-yana-and-otiiers-v-jindra-sareen-5668
- **Pages:** 40

## Headnote

452
STATE OF HA~YANA AND OTIIERS
v.
~JINDRA SAREEN
November 22, 1971
re. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND K. K. MATHEW, JJ.]
Punjab Public Relations Department (Gazetted) Service Rules 1958Post of Deputy Director (Press) held for more than three years without
order of ternzination of probation being passed-Post ht'ld in officiating
capacity-Proviso to Rule 10(3) does not apply.
Civil Service-Appointment made co~terminus with post-Termination
of appointment while post continues attracts Art. 311 (2) of Constitution.
Mala fides-,Several incidents cited to show mala fides-Cumulative
effect of all a/legations must be seen-Considerin11 each incident by itself
not proper.
The respondent joined the service of the compo•ile State of Punjab
and Haryana on June 22, 1957 as the State's Press Liaison Officer at Delhi
in the Public Relations Department of the State. The original appointmen~
was lo last till February 28, 1958 but was continued by orders passed from
time to time.
The respondent went on leave for aboul six months
fro1n
November 21, 1959 to May 18, 1960 with permission to act in Pakistan
as a Special Correspondent of The Hindustan Times Delhi.
On return
from lea>·e he was posted in the same service in the post of Deputy Director
(Field) from July 19, 1960 to September 19, 1960.
Later on he was
again posted as Officer on Special Duty which was also an equivalent post,
from September 20, 1960 to June 26, 1962.
When he crossed the efficiency bar in 1960 his salary was raised with effect from December 24,
1960.
He was appointed as Deputy Director (Press) which post was held
by him from June 27, 1962 to June 14, 19'66.
By order dated June 24,
I 966 the Governor of Punjab appointed him as State Pres3 Liaison Officer
with effect from June 14, 1966 and he was posted to Delhi.
This post
had been kept in abeyance cluring .the period when he was Deputy Director
(Press). On the reorganisation of the composite State of Punjab and ita
bifurcation into the States of Punjab and Haryana the post of State Press
Liaison Officer. Delhi, held by him was allocated to the State of Haryana
with effect from November I, I 966.
He was also allotted to the State
of Haryana.
He remained -on deputation with the Punjab
Government
from December 1, 1966 to March 24, 1967 and again resumed his duty
as State Press Liaison Officer, New Delhi, from March 25, 1967 under
the Government of Haryana. By order dated October 31,
1968 the
Haryana Government terminated his
services.
The
respondent filed a
writ petition in the High Court. The High Court rejected the plea of
ma/a {ides raised by the respondent but allowed the writ petition holding
in the respondent's favour that (a) under Rule 10(3) of the Gazetted
Service Rules the respondent on completing three years service as Deputy
Director (Press) had become a permanent employee of the Govcrnni.ent:
(b) the appointment of the respondent to the post of State Press Liaison
Officer waS co-terminus with the existence of the post and the respondent
was entitled to continue in the post while it was in existence i.e.
up to
Februarv 28, 1969. On the above grounds the High Court quashed the
order dated October 31 1968. Following the High Court's order the State
Government re-instated' the appellant but filed an appeal in this
Court
challenging the High Court's judgment: Apart from the merits, the Court
A
.B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
HARYANA v. R. SAREEN
453
had to consider the preliminary objection of the respondent to the effect
that in view of the fact that the respondent had been re-instated in service
the question of the validity of the original
order pa;sed on October 31,
1968 terminating the services of the respondent, did not survive for consideration.
HELD :
(i) The circumstance that the respondent was re-instated in
;ervice by the order dated December 5, 1969 could not and does not debar
the State from challenging the judgment of the Hign Court.
In fact immediately aftec passing the order dated December 5. i 969. the State had
b

## Text

_Characters 0–39,465 of 114,377. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39465 for what follows._

452
STATE OF HA~YANA AND OTIIERS
v.
~JINDRA SAREEN
November 22, 1971
re. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND K. K. MATHEW, JJ.]
Punjab Public Relations Department (Gazetted) Service Rules 1958Post of Deputy Director (Press) held for more than three years without
order of ternzination of probation being passed-Post ht'ld in officiating
capacity-Proviso to Rule 10(3) does not apply.
Civil Service-Appointment made co~terminus with post-Termination
of appointment while post continues attracts Art. 311 (2) of Constitution.
Mala fides-,Several incidents cited to show mala fides-Cumulative
effect of all a/legations must be seen-Considerin11 each incident by itself
not proper.
The respondent joined the service of the compo•ile State of Punjab
and Haryana on June 22, 1957 as the State's Press Liaison Officer at Delhi
in the Public Relations Department of the State. The original appointmen~
was lo last till February 28, 1958 but was continued by orders passed from
time to time.
The respondent went on leave for aboul six months
fro1n
November 21, 1959 to May 18, 1960 with permission to act in Pakistan
as a Special Correspondent of The Hindustan Times Delhi.
On return
from lea>·e he was posted in the same service in the post of Deputy Director
(Field) from July 19, 1960 to September 19, 1960.
Later on he was
again posted as Officer on Special Duty which was also an equivalent post,
from September 20, 1960 to June 26, 1962.
When he crossed the efficiency bar in 1960 his salary was raised with effect from December 24,
1960.
He was appointed as Deputy Director (Press) which post was held
by him from June 27, 1962 to June 14, 19'66.
By order dated June 24,
I 966 the Governor of Punjab appointed him as State Pres3 Liaison Officer
with effect from June 14, 1966 and he was posted to Delhi.
This post
had been kept in abeyance cluring .the period when he was Deputy Director
(Press). On the reorganisation of the composite State of Punjab and ita
bifurcation into the States of Punjab and Haryana the post of State Press
Liaison Officer. Delhi, held by him was allocated to the State of Haryana
with effect from November I, I 966.
He was also allotted to the State
of Haryana.
He remained -on deputation with the Punjab
Government
from December 1, 1966 to March 24, 1967 and again resumed his duty
as State Press Liaison Officer, New Delhi, from March 25, 1967 under
the Government of Haryana. By order dated October 31,
1968 the
Haryana Government terminated his
services.
The
respondent filed a
writ petition in the High Court. The High Court rejected the plea of
ma/a {ides raised by the respondent but allowed the writ petition holding
in the respondent's favour that (a) under Rule 10(3) of the Gazetted
Service Rules the respondent on completing three years service as Deputy
Director (Press) had become a permanent employee of the Govcrnni.ent:
(b) the appointment of the respondent to the post of State Press Liaison
Officer waS co-terminus with the existence of the post and the respondent
was entitled to continue in the post while it was in existence i.e.
up to
Februarv 28, 1969. On the above grounds the High Court quashed the
order dated October 31 1968. Following the High Court's order the State
Government re-instated' the appellant but filed an appeal in this
Court
challenging the High Court's judgment: Apart from the merits, the Court
A
.B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
HARYANA v. R. SAREEN
453
had to consider the preliminary objection of the respondent to the effect
that in view of the fact that the respondent had been re-instated in service
the question of the validity of the original
order pa;sed on October 31,
1968 terminating the services of the respondent, did not survive for consideration.
HELD :
(i) The circumstance that the respondent was re-instated in
;ervice by the order dated December 5, 1969 could not and does not debar
the State from challenging the judgment of the Hign Court.
In fact immediately aftec passing the order dated December 5. i 969. the State had
been taking very active steps to challenge the decision ot the High Court.
It followed that the State was entitled in the present appeal to challenge the
decision of the High Court setting aside the order dated October 31, 1968.
The preliminary objection must accordingly be over-ruled. [457 D-E]
(ii) The ap11.roach of the High Court in considering the allegation of
·ma/a fides was not proper.
The High Court had taken each allegation by
itself and had held that it was not sufficient to establish ma/a fides.
The
proper approach should have oeen to consider all the allegations together
and find out whether those allegations had been made out and whether
those allegations when established were sufficient to prove malice or ill-will
on the part of the officials concerned and whether the
impugned order
was the result of such malice or ill-will. [472 B-C]
On the facts of the case the plea of ma/a fider; alleged by the respon·
dent against the second and third
appellants
could not be
accepted
[475 Fl
Principles laid down in S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, [1964]
4 S.C.R. 733, followed.
(iii) When the respondent was appointed
Deputy
Director (Press)
the former incumbent of the post R who was promoted as Joint Director,
continued to have lien on it under r. 3.14 of the Civil
Service
Rules.
l.inder r. 3.11 (c) of the Civil Service Rules a Government servant can·
not be appointed ·substantively to a post on which another Government
servant holds a lien.
Therefore on the date when
the
respondent was
appointed as Deputy Director (Press) he could not have been appointed
to that post substantively as R was having a lien on the post.
The various
payslips which arc on record also show that the respondent's appointment
must have been on an officiating basis as defined in r. 2.42 of the Civil Ser·
vice Rules. The objections of the Public Service Commission to the respondent's appointments as Deputy Director (Press) were also on record.
All these circumstances were against the contentions of the respondent of
his having been appointed against a permanent vacancy. [481 A-DJ
The essential requisite for the applicability of r. 10 is that a person
must have been appointed against a permanent vacancy.
As the respon·
dent had been working in the post of Deputy Director (Press) only in an
officiating capacity the question of extending his probation or confirming
him under r. I 0 of the Gazetted Service Rules did not arise, and if so the
question of calculating the total period of probation ol three years which
is necessary for the application of the
Proviso to r. 10(3) did not arise.
[482 G]
The circumstance that with effect from April I. 1964 the post of Deputy
Director (Publicity Material) was made permanent could not help the
respondent as he had not been at all appointed in the lint instance against
a permanent vacancy.
The view taken by the High Court, to the cont·
rary, could not be sustained. [484 El
State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh. [1968] l S.C.R. 1. C.J.J., Mysore
v. Indore Mercantile Bank, Ltd., [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 256, Tahsildar
454
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972) 2 S.C.R.
Si1!Jh v. State of U.P., U959] Supp, 2 S.C.R. 875, State of Madhya
Priulesh v. Lal Bhargavendra Singh, [1966] 2 S.C.R. 56, Dr. Deep 1'aur
v.State of Punjab, (1967) 1 S.L.R. 34 and Devi Shanker Parbhakar v.
State of Haryafl!J (1971) 73 P .L.R. 644, referred to.
(iii) No orders had been placed before the Court to show that the
appointment of !he respondent as State Press Liaison Officer was on a
temporary oasis ~nd was not co-terminus with the pO'lt.
On the other
band the Assistant Accounts Officer had issued
payslip dated April 22.
1968 which was on record to the Treasury Officer, Delhi stating that the
payslip issued in favour of the respondent who was the State Press Liaison
Officer, Haryan.a, New Delhi, on August 31, 1967 may be deemed as operative upto and inclusive of Februai:v 28, 1969. It was not disputed that
at the time when the said payslip was issued, the durallon of the post had
been extended upto February 28, 1969. In view of all the circumstances
it is reasonable to infer that the appointment of the respondent as State
Press Liaison Officer was co-terminus with the continuance of the post. It
followed that the State had no power to terminate the services of the res·
pondent when the post itself was continuing, If any action by way of disciplinary proceedings was being taken then the State should have complied
with Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution which they had admittedly not done
in this case. The order of the State Government dated October 31, 1968
terminatin11 the services of the respondent was
accordingly held to
be
illegal. [489 H, 490 A, E, G]
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1543 of
1970.
.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 18,
I 969 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 851 of 1968.
V. M. Tarkunde, C. D. Dewan, 0. N. Mohindroo and R. N.
Sachthey, for the appellants.
M. K. Ramamurthi, P. P. Rao and T. V. S. Narasimhachari,
for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Vaidialingam, J. This appeal by '!he State of Haryana,
the
Chief Minister of the State and the Registrar Co-operative Societies, on certificate, is directed ag~inst the judgment and order of
the High Court of Delhi dated September 18, 1969 aHowing Civil
Writ No. 851 of 1968 and quashing the order of the State Government dated October 31, 1968 terminating the services of the
respondent.
Before we proceed to set out the facts leading up to the filing
of the writ petition by the respondent, it is necessary to deal with
a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal that
bas been raised by Mr. M. K. Ramamurthy, learned counsel for
the respondent.
The objection is that the order dated October 31,
1968 terminating the services of the respondent, which was quashed
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
D
E
F
G
H
HARYANA v. R. SAREEN (Vaidialingam, J.)
455
by the High Court and which order again is sought to be canvassed in the appeal has been cancelled by the State on December
5, 1969. In consequence of the latter order, the counsel pointed
out, the respondent has been reinstated in service. It is the contention of Mr. M. K. Ramamurthy that in view of the fact that
the officer has now been reinstated in service, the question of the
validity of the original order passed on October 31, 1968 terminat.
ing the services ~f the respondent no longer survives for consideration in this appeal.
This preliminary objection has been contested by Mr. V. M.
Tarkunde, learned counsel for the appellants.
We are satisfied that the preliminary objection, raised on behalf
of the respondent, to the maintainability of the appeal, cannot
be sustained for the reasons stated below. The order of termination was passed on October 31, 1968. The respondent filed Civil
Writ No. 851 of 1968, before the High Court, challenging th~
said order.
The judgment of the High Court setting aside the
said order and allowing the writ petition was rendered on September 18, 1969. It is no doubt true that on December 5, 1969, the
State Government passed an order cancelling the previous order
of termination dated October 31, 1968 and posted the respondent
as Deputy Director (Publicity) at Narr.au!.
The said order further directed the payment to the respondent full pay and allowances
that he would have been entitled, if his services had not heen
terminated.
But there is a very significant recital in the order to
the effect that the State is cancelling the previous order dat.:d
October 31, 1968, in view of the acceptance by the High Court
of the writ petition filed by the respondent.
A copy of the order
dated December 5. 1969, was also forwarded by the Government
to the Assistant Registrar of the High Court of Delhi.
The State filed on December 19,_ 1969 an application S.C.A.
No. 1 of 1970 in the High Court praying for grant of c~rl!licate
to enable the State to file an appeal in this Court against the decision in Civil Writ No. 851 of 1968. On the next day, i.e. December 20, 1969 the State filed a petition C.M. No. 15 of 1970 in
S.C.A. No. 1 of 1970 praying for restraining the respondent from
claiming arrears of salary and allowances for the period he was
out of service from October 31, 1968 or in the alternative to direct
the respondent to furnish sufficient bank guarantee before recovering those amount~ from the State. This request was made to
enure till the disposal of the application filed by the State for grant
of certificate. Both in the petition C.M. No. 15 oi 1970 as well
a_s in the affidavit filed in ~upport thereof, it was specifically men·
tioned that the copy of the 1udgment of the High Court was received
by the Chief Secretary to the Government on November 25, 1969
456
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 2 S.C.R.
and that in compliance with the judgment .of the High Court, •he
respondent had been posted as Deputy Director (Publicity) at
Narnaul by order dated December 5, 1969. A copy of this ord1:r
was also annexed to the petition. It was further stated that the
amount payable to the respondent being very large, there will be
considerable difficulty in obtaining restitution in case the judgment
of the High Court is set aside by this Court.
After setting ·Jut
the above facts, the State prayed for a stay oi payment of the
amounts or the respondent being asked to draw the amounts on
furnishing bank guarantee pending the disposal of S.C.A. No 1
of 1970.
The respondent filed counter-affidavits, both to the main application S.C.A. No. 1 of 1970 as well as to the stay petition No. 15
of 1970. In his counter-affidavit to the stay petition he had
referred to the decision of the High Court in his favour and lo the
order dated December 5, 1969 passed by the State reinstating him
in service.
No doubt, he has averred that this order was passed
without any reservation or qualification. He also opposed the said
application on merits.
In his counter-affidavit opposing S.C.A.
No. 1 of 1970, the respondent had again stated that the previous
order of termination, which was set aside by the High Court, was
cancelled on December 5, 1969 by the State without any reservation or qualification.
In view oi this the respondent averred that
the position in law is that the order dated October 31, 1969 should
be considered to have never existed at any time and therefore there
was nothing further for the State to agitate in this Court.
After hearing both the parties, the learned Judges of the High
Court, who were fully aware of the averments made by the respondent as well as the order dated December 5, 1969, passed by the
State, by their order dated February 13, 1970, granted the certificate of fitness.
Regarding the stay petition, the High Court has
stated that as the respondent herein, has been reinstated and aiso
been paid his full salary and allowances, no further question of
staying the payment or directing the respondent to furnish bank
guarantee arises for consideration.
In this view, while granting
the certificate and allowing S.C.A. No. 1 of 1970, the stay petition
C.M. No. 15 of 1970 was dismissed.
In view of what is stated above, it is clear that the order dated
December 5, 1969 was passed by the State in obedience to the
judgment of the High Court setting aside the previous order dated
Octobe.r 31, 1968. It has been specifically stated by the-State in
the order dated December 5, 1969 as well as in the various affidavits and applications, referred to above, that the State had taken
steps to come to this Court against the decision of the High Court
of Delhi.
The order dated December 5, 1969 read in the context
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
HARYANA v. R. SAREEN (Vaidia/ingam, J.)
457
in which it was made and taking into consideration the other
circumstances, mentioned above, it wiil be seen that the State wa>
not unconditionally cancelljng the order dated October 31, 1968
with a view to take back the respondent in service for all times.
If the intention of the State was to cancel the order dated October
31, 1968 and reinstate the respondent in service with all the
attendent benefits that he will be entitled to, then it was totally
unnecessary on the part of the State to have filed an application
for grant of certificate and also pray for stay regarding payment of
arrears of salary and allowances.
The State was bound to comply
with the judgment passed by the High Court.
In this case, it must
be stated that the State acted quite properly in so complying with
the judgment of the High Court w)len the order dated December
5, 1969 was passed.
Therefore, the order dated December 5,
1969 niust, in the circumstances, be considered to be a purely
provisional one pending the ultimate decision of this Court. Therefore, the circumstances that the responderrt was reinstated in service
by the order dated December 5, 1969 cannot and does not debar
the State from challenging the judgment of the High Court.
In
fact, immediately after passing the order dated December 5, 1969,
the State has been taking very active steps to challenge the decision
of the High Court.
In view of all these above circumstances, it
follows that the State is entitled, in this appeal, to challenge the
decision of the High Court setting aside the order dated October
31, 1968.
The preliminary objection, in consequence, is overruled.
Having disposal of the preliminary objection, we
will now
proceed to state the facts leading up to the filing by the respondent
of the writ petition in the High Court.
His averrnents in the writ
petition were as follows :
He joined the services of the composite State of Punjab on
June 22, 1957 as States Press Liaison Officer in Delhi on a starting
salary of Rs. 600/- p.m. in the grade of Rs. 500-25-650/30-800
in the Public Relations Department of the State.
By order dated
June 28, 1957 the Governor of Punjab created a post of State
Press Liaison Officer at Delhi in the scale mentioned above with
effect from June 22, 1957 till February 28, 1958 in the Public
Relations Department, Punjab and also approved his appointment
to the said post.
This order further directed that the expenditure
is to be met from within the budget grant under the head stated
ther~in for the year 1957-58. A copy of the order was also communicated to the Accountaint General. Punjab for information. By
order dated August 1. 1957, dealing with the appointment, posting and transfer, the Governor of Punjab appointed him as State
Press Liaison Officer at Delhi, in the grade mentioned in the order.
in the Public Relations. Department.
The order further referred
458
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1972] 2 S.C.R.
to the fact that the officer has taken charge of his duties with
effect from June 22, 1957 afternoon.
The creation of the po>t
of the State Press Liaison Officer as well as his appointment to the
said post were done simultaneously by one and the same order
dated June 28, 1957.
In July, 1962, the .Governor of Punjab,
created the Punjab Public Relations Service and the post of State
Press Liaison Officer in Delhi was included in the said service; as
a cadre post. He went on leave for about six months fro;n November 21, 1959 to May 18, 1960 with permission to act in Pakistan as a Special Correspondent of the Hindustan Times, New Ddhi,
on a salary of Rs. 1500/- p.m.
On return from leave, he was
posted in the same service in the post of Deputy Director (Fie!d)
from July 19, 1960 to September 19, 1960. Later on, he was
again posted as Officer on SjJecial Duty, which was also an equivalent post, from September 20, 1960 to June 26, 1962. When he
crossed the efficiency bar in 1960, his salary was raised with effect
from December 24, 1960. He was appointed as Deputy Director
(Press), which pos't w~s held by him from June 27, 1962 to June
14, 1966.
By order dated June 24, 1966 the Governor of Punjab
appointed him as State, Press, Liaison Officer with effect from June
14, 1966 and was posted to Delhi.
The order states that his
appointment in Delhi to his original post is "consequent upon the
revival of the State Press Liaison Officer, Delhi."
This post of
State Press Liaison Officer had been held in abeyance during the
period when he was Deputy Director (Press).
On the re:Jrganisation of the composite State o.f Punjab and its bifurcation into the
States of Punjab and Haryana, the post of State Press
Liaison
Officer, Delhi, held by him, was allocated to the State ot Haryana
with effect from November J, 1966. He was also allotted to the
State of Haryana.
He remained on deputation with the Punjab
Government from December 1, I 966 to March 24. 1967 and again
resumed his duty as State Press Liaison Officer, New Delhi, from
March 25, 1967 under the Government of Haryana.
He continued to work in the said post till October 31, 1968, on which
date the impugned order terminating his services was passed by
the Stale Government.
The respondent claimed that since his appointment in June,
1957, no fault has been found in his work by the successive Chief
Ministers and other superior officers, under whom
he worked.
Even when he was working under 'the State of Haryana, his duties
were to maintain liaison between the State and the press in Delhi
and to explain the policies of the State Government to leading
public m-;:n in Delhi· It was also part of his duty to arrange
interviews to the Chief Ministers with the gentlemen of the "fourth
Estate" and other authorities and agencies at Delhi.
The second
appellant was elected on May 19, 1968 as the leader of the Haryana
Congress Legislative Party and was due to be sworn in as Chief
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
[
F
HARYANA \', R, SAREEN (Vaidialingam. J.)
459
Minister of the State at New Delhi on May 21, 1968.
The respondent refers to a series of in~idents which took pl.ace between
him and the second and the third appellants. In view of these
circumstances, both the Chief Minister and the third appellant,
who was ithe Head of the Department, mala fide passed the order
dated October 31, 1968 terminating his services with effect from
the date of the receiJJ'I: of the order. The order itself is dated
October 31, 1968 passed by the Governor of the State of Haryana
terminating the services of the respondent from the date of the
receipt of the order.
One month's salary in lieu of notice was also
ordered to be paid.
The respondent was directed to relinquish
charge of his post at once on receipt o{ the order.
The order was
delivered to the respondent on November I, 1968.
The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging tlie order dated October 31, 1968 on various grounds.
According to him, the order is one by way of punishment imposed
upon him and passed in violation of Art. 311 ( 2) of the Comtitution. The order has been passed mala fide and vindictively by or
at the instance of the Chief Minister, the second appeilant, in
collaboration with the third appellant, who was the Head of the
Department, and both of whom had become hostile and ini111ical
to him without any fault of his.
The post of State Press Liaison
Officer, which was held by him, being a permanent post included
in the Public Relations Service of the State, his appointment enured
for the duration of the post and as such the. termination of his
service on October 31, 1968, when the post was stil in existence,
was illegal and void.
Under the
Service Rules, governing the
Public Relations Department, in which the post held by hi.m was
included, no person appointed iO a post shall continue to remain
on probation for more than three years.
He having worked for
over 11 years, is to be deemed to be a permanent employee under
the Government of Haryana.
On all .hese grounds, he prayed
fo~ quashing the order dated October 31, 1968 as illegal and
void.
It will be seen from the averments, noted above,
that the
respondent attacked the order dated October 31, 1968 on the
G
~round th~t he was a pe~anent ~mployee of the State having been
1n the service of the Pubhc Relattons Department for over 11 years
and as such t~e t:rminati?n of his services contravened Art. 311 (2)
of the ~~mstttutton.
HI~ further case is that the post of State
Press L1a1son Officer, which post he was occupying was a permanent, post included in the Public R,elations Servi~e ol the State
H
~nd hence ~e w~s entitled to hold the said post so Jong as the post
itself was m existence.
He has ·also attacked the order as one
pa.ssed ma/a fide by the Chief Minister in collusion and collaboration
wtth the Head of the Department, the third a.ppellant. The point
16-LSOOSup. Cl/72
460
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 2 S.C.R.
to be noted is that the respondent rested his case almost entirely
on the post, that he was holding, namely, that of State Press Liaison
Officer.
Both the Chief Minister as well as the Head of the Department
( tnird appellant) filed separate affidavits. While the Chief Minister, (second appellant) mainly controverted the allegation of
ma/a fides made in ithe petition against him, the third appellant,
apart from controverting the allegation of mala fides, also referred
to_ the various other averments made in the writ petition regarding
the nature of the right in respect o,f the post occupied by the
respondent. As w~ have not set out the allegation of ma/a fides
made in the writ petition, we are also not referring to the averment
made in these two affidavits with regard to those allegations. The
question of mala fides will be d·~att with by us later. But, it must
be noted that the Chief Minister, in his affidavit had stated that
the decision to terminate the services of the respondent was taken
by him on October 29, 1968 and not on October 31, 1968, as
alleged by the respondent
After the decision was taken, necessary action was also taken by the Administrative Department in
consultation with the Law Department and the order was actually
issued on October 31, 1968, He has further stated that after he
had taken a decision to termi·nate the services of the respondent on
October 29, 1968, the file did not come to him thereafter, nor
did• he have any occasion to talk to the Chief Secretary or to the
third appellant in connection with the same.
The Chief Minister has further stated that the respondent was
a temporary employee and ·as such his services could be tenninated
under the rules without assigning any reason of giving one month ·s
notice or one month's salary in· lieu tbereof.
It is further stated
by him that the impugned order is v;llid and does not contravene
Art. 311 ( 2) of the Constitu.tion, as no punishment has been
infl}cted on the respondent.
It bas been furt.Qer stated that the
impugned order has been made bona fide and for purely administrative reasons.
The second appellant, who had by then become the Registrar
of Co-operative Societies and Deputy Secretary .to the Government
in the Panchayat Department, very strenuously controverted the
allegation of mala fides made against him. He further denied that
he was in collusion or collaboration wi_th the Chief Minister, resulting in the passing of the impugned order. In his counter-affiJavit
he has stated ·as follows :
The post ci State Press Liaison Officer in the Public Relations
Department was created by the Punjab Government with effect
from June 22, 1957 and it was to last till February 28, 1958.
By
the gazette notification of July, 1962 the said post was not inci-ded
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
}I
A
II
c
D
E
F
G
H
HARYANA v. R. SAREEN (Vaidialingam, J.)
461
in the cadre of Public Relations Service.
By the said order no
new service was created, nor was the post in question, included
in the cadre of post in the Servic~. Even the initial appointment
of the respondent as State Press Liaison Officer was iJ:regular, as
it had been made in violation of rules relating to recruiunent to
Government Service.
Though there was only one post of State
Press Liaison Officer and the respondent was appointed thereto,
the said post was being continued by the Government on annual
sanctions.
The re_spondent, as long as he held the said past, was
holding the same on purely temporary basis as the post itself was
a temporary post and continued from time to ·time,
The respondent's statement that he had been in service for more than 11 years
is correct, but his further averment that he has been all chese years
holding the post of State Press Liaison Officer is not correct.
The
respondent had gone on leave and on return he joined as Deputy
Director in 'the Public RelatioHs Department. The post oi Deputy
Director is a cadre post. The Public Service Commission took
exception to his appointment to the cadre post of Deputy Director.
The decision to terminate the responden:t's services had b~en taken
by the Chief Minister as early as October 29, 1968, though the
orders were passed only on October 31, 1968. As the orders had
to be served urgently on the respondent, it w_as sent for service
'through a special messenger on November 1, 1968. The respondent was a temporary employee, inasmuch as the post occupied
by him was itself temporary, having been created initially for one
year and later extended from time to time.
The said post was
held in abeyance for four years from June 1962 to June 1966,
during which period the respondent was occupying the cadre post
of Deputy Director.
As the Public Service Commission objected
to his appointment as Deputy Director, the post of State Pres;
Liaison Officer was revived and the respondent was appointed to
that post in June 1966.
At no time was he ever made permanent
by any order of the Government. His appointment to the post
of State Press Liaison Officer was initially maoo for one year and
no special terms or conditions were stipulated.
The Government
has got absolute power under the Service Rules to terminate the
services of a temporary employee on giving one month's notice
wrthout assigning any reason. Equally, the Government has got
full power to so terminate the services of a temporary employee
by giving one month's salary in lieu of notice.
The impugned
order has been passed bona fide and due to administrative reasons.
In particular, it is further stated that the allegation of the respondent that the post of State Press Liaison Officer was pernianent
and that the same was included in the Public Relations Service of
the State, is not correct.
The respondents further averment that
he was appointed to the said post for the duration thereof is baseless.
On the other hand, the respondent was a temporary emplo-
462
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1972) 3 S.C.R.
ree, whose services could be terminated in the manner in which
1t has been done. The rules relied on by the respondent are not
applicable ei:ther to him or to the post held by him.
As tim respondent was not appointed against any permanent. vacancy, rule .10
of the Punjab ).>ublic Relations Department (Gazetted)_ Serv~ce
Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as the Gazettea Service
Rules) do not apply.
The respandtmt in his reply affidavit dated February 19, 1969
reiterated that the post of State Press Liaison Officer had been
included in the cadre of the Punjab Public Relations Service by
the gazette notification No. 6244-IPP-62/14270 dated July lL
1962 and he also filed a copy of the said notificirtion. He denied
the allegation of the appellants that the post, he was holding, was
a temporary one and that he was holding the said post on a temporary basis.
On the other hand, by a reference to an order bearing on the same, he averred that his appointment was for the
duration of the post of State Press Liaison Officer at Delhi and the
post havin)!'. been continued without any break. and his appointment
also having been automatically continued against that po>t without
:1riy interruption, he had a right to hold the same so Jon)( as the
post existed.
As the said post had been included in the Gazetted
Service Rules, in 1962 he also automatically became a permanent
member of the Service under r. 10(3) of the said Rules. which
applied to the cadre created by the notification. He farther denied
that he was hodling a temporary post and stated that he was no't
aware of any orders passed extending the duration of the post on
the basis of annual sanction.
He was also not aware of any
objections raised by the Public Service Commission to his appointment as Deputy Director. As he was not a temporary emplo}":!e.
the State has no power to summarily terminate his services in
violation of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution.
It is seen that on February 24~ 1969, the High Court permitted
the respondent's counsel to inspect the note file titled as "termi.na-
!ion of services of Rajindra Sareen" leading to the passing of the
1mpunged order.. On the same day. the respondent, along with
his counsel, inspected the file in the presence of an officer of the
Public Relations Department of the Governnient
of Haryana.
After inspection the respondent filed a supplementary affidavit
dated March 10, 1969. In this affidavit he refers elabnrately to
the various notes made by different officers in the said note file
and averred that his allegations in the writ petition that the order
has been passed ma/a fide bv the Chief Minister in collusion and
collaboration with the third appellant are fully borne .out.
On March 25, 1969 the High Court passed an order directlng
this supplementary affidavit of the responden't to be placed on
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c.
D
E
F
G
H
HARYANA )', R. SAREEN ( Vaidia/ingam, J.)
463
record \\Oithout prejudice to the rights of the appellants to object
that the note file is not relevant.
By the same order the Court
gave the appellants time to file their counter-affidavits, if any.
There is no controversy that the Chief Minister did not Ille
any further counter-affidavit, 'though allegations of ma/a [ides have
been repeated by the respondent in his affidavit dated March J 0,
1969. The third appellant filed a counter-affidavit on April I 2.
1969. He also refers to the order passed by the High Court on
March 25, J 969 taking on record the supplementary affidavit filed
by the respondent on March 10, 1969 on the basis of the inspection of the note file as per order, dated February 24, 1969.
The
third appellant very elaborately again controverted the allegations
of ma/a (ides made against him and the Chief Minister.
On April I 2, 1969 the third appellant again filed an affidavit
regarding the copy of the notification dated July J J, i 962 filed
by the respondent along with his reply affidavit tlated February L 9,
1969. The third appellant also averred that the said nNificatio11
did not make the post of State Press Liaison Ollicer a cadre post
nor did it include the said post in the Punjab Public Relations
Service.
The applicability of ihe Gazetted Service Rules to the
post held by the respondent was also denied. It was further averred
that the post.of State Press Liaison Officer, held by the respondent.
was an ex-cadre post and his appointmen:t had not been made with
the concurrence of the Public Service Commission.
The appointment of the respondent to the said post having been made in 1957,
his service conditions are not governed by the Gazetted Service
Rules. which came into existence only in 1968 and more specially
when the said post was not mentioned in the appendix A of the
said Rules.
There was a further reply affidavit filed by the respondent on
May 26, J 969 regarding the matter mentioned in the two affidavits
dated April 12, 1969 filed by the third appellant.
The respondent
reiterated his plea that the post of State Press Liaison Officer, New
Delhi, is a cadre post and it has been treated as such ever since
the notification dated July 11, 1962. He also made certain further
allegations against the third appellant to support his plea of ma/a
{ides. He again pointed out that he was appointed to the post of
Deputy Director (Press) in a permanent vacancy. Even assuming
that any objections have been raised by the Public Accounts
Commi'ttee or the State Public Service Commission to hts appointment to the post·of Deputy Director (Press), they have no bearing
when the State had appointed him to the said post.
Obviously, in view of the conflicting stand taken by the respon.
dent and the third appellant, in several affidavits, referred to above,
regarding the effect of the notification dated July 11, 1962, in
464
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1972] 2 S.C.t-..
respect of the post of State Press Liaison Officer, New Delhi, the
Division Bench of the High Court, during the course of the hearing
of the writ petition passed an order on July 21, 1969. In the said
order the High Court had referre.d to the fact that the \'/Tit petition
had been heard on several occasions.
But, nevertheless, regarding
the point urged by the writ petitioner that he holds the status of
a permanent government employee, in view of the fact that the
post of State Press Liaison Officer, !}as been made a cadre post
and included in the cadre of Punjab Public Relations Service as
per notification dated July 11, 1962, requires, according to the
High Court, clarification, specially w_hen the writ petitioner had
filed a copy of the gaz.~tted notification. The High Court prima
facie is of 1the view that the said notification created a new service
entitled Punjab Public Relations Service and that it reters to the
various posts in the said Service, one of which is that of the State
Press Liaison Officer. New Delhi. The High Court adverted
•to
the contention raised on behalf of the State that the said notification has not created any new Service nor has it made the post
in question a cadre post. . The High Court, in the circumstances,
felt that sufficient material has not been placed befo,re it to enable
it to give a finding whether a new Service called Punjab Public
Relations Service was created by the notification dated July 11,
1962, and also as to the effect of the notification about the nature
of the post of State Press Liaison Officer.
In view of these
circumstances, the High Court gave an opportunity to the writ
petitioner, as well as to the State, to file suppicmentary affidavits
in support of their respective contentions and also to file documents. if any, on which the parties proposed to rely. In particular,
the High Court indicated that the counter-affidavits, that may be
filed on behalf of the State should include the affidiwit of the then
Chief Secretary who dealt with the matter at the material time
leading up to the issue of the notificaticm dated July 11, 1962.
The High Court has also expressed the opinion that if necessary
they will have to examine the officer, who was at the mgfcrial time,
the Chief Secretary in the State.
In pursuance of the above direction given by the High Court,
A
B
c
D
E
F
the respondent, the third appellant . as well
as certain officers
G
including the then Chief Secretary filed various affidavits.
But it
is rather strange that though the directions of the High Court
re_lated only to the post of State Press Liaison Officer, the controversy was unfortunately einlarged, in the first instance, in the
affidavit filed by the writ petitioner on July 21, 1969 as also in
the affidavits filed on behalf of the State, even regarding the nature
H
of the appointment of the writ petitioner to the post of Deputy
Director (Press) held by him from Jul!l\: 27, 1962 to June 14,
1966.
We are particularly referring to this aspect as a contention
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
HARYANA v. R. SAREEN (Vaidialingan .. J.)
465
has been. raised by Mr.