# SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19113] MADAN GOPAL v. STATE OF PUNJA~

- **Citation:** [1963] 3 S.C.R. 716
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1963
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/supreme-court-reports-19113-madan-gopal-v-state-of-punja-2667
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

1962 --
716
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19113]
MADAN GOPAL
v.
STATE OF PUNJA~
(P. B. SINHA, c. J., K. SUBBA RAO, J. c. SHAH,
·
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and
J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Temporary Govornm<at Servant-Termination of ServiceJilnquiry-Misconduct-Oonstitution of India, Art. 311(2).
'
The appellant, ·a temporary Government servant, was
...__
. served with a charge sheet alleging misconduct.
An enquiry
was held on the charges by the Settlement Officer and the
appellant was
found
guilty. The Deputy Commissioner
accepting the findings of the Settlement Officer and without
••
giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant of showing
cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him
terminated his services after giving him one month's pay in
lieu of one month's notice. The appellant challenged the
termination of his •ervice by way of a writ petition before the
Punjab High Court. The Single Judge granted the writ
quashing the order. The Division Bench reversed the Single
Judge's order.
Held, that the termination of the appellant'• service
which was preceded by an enquiry into his alleged misconduct
and based on the finding of misconduct, amounted to casting a stigma affecting his future career, and, there being
non-compliance with Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of India
in that the appellant was not afforded the opportunity to show
cause against the proposed punishment, the order contravened
Art. 31I(2) of the C~mstitution. ·
Puru•hottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, (1958)
· S, C. R. 828, referred to.
Stat< of Bihar v. Gopi Kishore PraMd A. I. R. 1960 S. C.
689, followed.
State of Ori1Sa v. Ram Narain Das, (1961) 1 S. C.R. 606
distinguished.
·
'

## Text

1962 --
716
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19113]
MADAN GOPAL
v.
STATE OF PUNJA~
(P. B. SINHA, c. J., K. SUBBA RAO, J. c. SHAH,
·
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and
J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Temporary Govornm<at Servant-Termination of ServiceJilnquiry-Misconduct-Oonstitution of India, Art. 311(2).
'
The appellant, ·a temporary Government servant, was
...__
. served with a charge sheet alleging misconduct.
An enquiry
was held on the charges by the Settlement Officer and the
appellant was
found
guilty. The Deputy Commissioner
accepting the findings of the Settlement Officer and without
••
giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant of showing
cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him
terminated his services after giving him one month's pay in
lieu of one month's notice. The appellant challenged the
termination of his •ervice by way of a writ petition before the
Punjab High Court. The Single Judge granted the writ
quashing the order. The Division Bench reversed the Single
Judge's order.
Held, that the termination of the appellant'• service
which was preceded by an enquiry into his alleged misconduct
and based on the finding of misconduct, amounted to casting a stigma affecting his future career, and, there being
non-compliance with Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of India
in that the appellant was not afforded the opportunity to show
cause against the proposed punishment, the order contravened
Art. 31I(2) of the C~mstitution. ·
Puru•hottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, (1958)
· S, C. R. 828, referred to.
Stat< of Bihar v. Gopi Kishore PraMd A. I. R. 1960 S. C.
689, followed.
State of Ori1Sa v. Ram Narain Das, (1961) 1 S. C.R. 606
distinguished.
·
'
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 329of1960,
-·
·3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
717
Appeal from the judgment and order dated·
October 28, 1958, of the Punjab High Court in.
L. P.A. No. 72 of 1958.
N. N. KeBwani, for the appellant.
N. S. Bindra and P. D. Menon, for the respondents.
1962; August 27. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
SHAH, J.-The appellant Madan Gopal was
appointed an Inspector of Consolidation by order
dated October 5, 1953 of the Settlement Commissioner.of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union.
The
appointment was "on
temporary
basis ....
and terminable with one month's notice". On
February 5, 1955, the appellant was served with a
. ''charge-sheet" by the Settlement Officer, Bhatinda _
that be (the appellant) had received Rs. 150/- as
illegal gratification from one Darbar~ Singh and
bad demanded Rs. 30/- as illegal gratification from
one Ude Singh. The appellant was called upon to
show caus:i why disciplfoary action should not be
taken against him if the allegations in the chargesheet were proved. The appellant submitted his
explanation to the charge-sheet. On Fehruary
22! 1955, the Settlement Officer submitted his report
to the Dtiputy Commissioner Bhatinda, that the
chage refa.ting to recept of illegal gratification from
Darbara. Singh. was proved.
Th~ Deputy Commissioner by order dated March 17, 1 V55 ordered that
the services. of Madan Gopal Inspector be terminated forthwith and that in lieu of notice he will jlet
one month's pay as required by the Rules.
The appellant requested the Deputy Commi111ainer to review the order, and also submitted a.
-.. memorial to the Minister for Revenue affairs. Having failed to obtain relief, the appellant applied to_
1Sfi3
JI adan Gopal
v.
St•te ~J PUnj<1b,,
Mhsh J.
1iet
.Ji•tla• Ooflol
' . ..
Slat1 •f PuaJd
718
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963]
to the High Court of Pepsu for a writ under Art. 226
of the Constitution quashing the order dated March
17, 1955 on the ground inter alia that the order of
dismissal from service was in contravention of Art.
3,1 of the Constitution as no reasonable opportunity to show cause against the order of dismissal
was at all given., He also challenged the authority
of the Settlement Officer to hold the enquiry and
submitted that the procedure followed by that
Officer in making the enquiry was irregular. The
petition was transferred to the High Court . of
Punjab on the reorganization of the State of
l:'unjab.
Mr. Justice Bishan Narain
who heard the
application issued the writ prayed for, because, in
his view, the order of termination of employment
was in the nature of an order of punishment and as
the provisions of Art. 311(2) had not been complied
with by the Enquiry Officer, the Deputy Commissioner or the Settlement Commissioner, the order
was invalid. In appeal under the Letters Patent,
the order was reversed by a Division Bench of the
High Court. The High Court held that the appellant was a temporary servant and had no right to
hold the post he was occupying and by the impugned
order the appellant was not dismissed or removed
from service, but his employment was terminated
in exercise of authority reserved under the terms of
employmePt, and no penalty was imposed upon t!J.e
appellant.
The appellant was a temporary employee, and
his employment was liable to be terminated by
"notice of one month" without assigning any reason.
The Deputy Commissioner, however, did not act in
exercise of this authority : the appellant was served
with a charge-sheet setting out his mis.demeanour,
an enquiry was held in respect of the alleged
misdemeanour and his emploment was terminated
beoause in the view of the Settlement Offi.cer-,...with
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
719
which view the Deputy Commissioner agreed-. the
misdemeanour was proved. Such a termination
amounted to casting a "stigma affecting his future
career". In Stare of Bihar v. Gopi Kishore Prasad (1),
the learned Chief Justice in dealing with cases of
termination of service or discharge of public servant
on probation set out five propositions of which the
3rd is enunciated thus:
"But, if instead of terminating such a .
person's ervice without any enquiry, the·
employer chooses to hold an enquiry into his
alleged misconduct, or inefficiency, or for some
similar reason, the termination of service is by
way of punishment, because it puts a stigma
on his competence and thus affects his future
career. In such a case, he is entitled to the
protection or Art. 311 (2) of the ConFotitution."
It is true that in that case the Court was dealing
with the case of a public servant on probation
whereas the appellant was a temporary employee,
•
but, in principle, it will make no difference whether •
the appellant was a probationer or a temporary
employee. The appellant had been served with a
charge sheet that he had received illegal gratification from one person and had demanded illegal
gratification from another. The
appellant was
given an opportunity to make his defence and. it
appears that witnesses in support of the charge and
in defence were examined before the Settlement
Officer. The Settlement Officer reported that on
the evidence he was satisfied that the appellant had
received Rs. '150/" as illegal gratification and that
the appellant did not "enjoy good reputation and
was a person of doubtful integrity". It is now well-
"'
settled that the protection of Art. 311 (2) oft.he
Constitution applies as much to a temporary public
{I) A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 689.
•
19~
Madan Gopal
''
v.
State of Punjab.
--
Sh&ll J.
1962
Jl adan Gojal
••
Sta.et o J Pu'!Jj ••
720
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963]
servant as to permanent public servants. By virtue·
of Art. 3 ll of the Constitution the appellant was·
not liable to be dismissed or removed from service
until he had been given reasonable opportunity
against the action proposed to be taken in regard to
him: The appellant was given no such opportunity ·
and Art. 3ll of the Constitution was therefore not·
complied with.
Counsel 11.ppearing for the State of Punjab
contended that the order dated March 17, 1955, was
not the order pursuant to which employment ·of the
appellant was terminated, the effective ordElr being
one passed by the Settlement Officer on March 30,
1955. No such .order is however found on the
record, and It af>pears that in the written statement
filed by the State in the High Court it was expressly adr;nitted that th_e employment ofthe appellant was terminated on March 17, 1955. Counsel
also
contended
that enquiry
was made by
the . Settlement
Officer
for
the
purpose
of
ascertaining whether the appellant who was a
temporary employee should be continued in service
·or should be discharged under the terms of his
employ~ent, and to ·a termination made pursuant
to such.an enquiry the protection of Art. 3ll (:l) of
the Constitution was not attracted, and in support
of his submission counsel relied upon a judgment of
this Court in the State of Orisi;a v. Ram Narayan
Daa (1). In Ram Narayan Das's case enquiry was
made pursuant to Rules governing the conduct of·
public servants for ascertaining whether the probation of the public servant concerned should be continued and a notice to show cause in that behalf was
served upon him. On the report of the enquiry officer
that the work and conduct of the public servant
was unsatisfactory, an order of termination of
employment was passed without affording him an
.,
(I) ( 1961) I S.C.R. 606 .
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
721
opportunity of showing cause against the action
proposed: to be taken in regard to him. This Court
pointed out that the public servant had no right to
the post he occupied and under the terms of his
appointment he was liable to be discharged at any
time during the period of probation. It was
observed that mere termination of employment
does not carry with it "any evil consequences" suoh
as forfeiture of his pay or allowances, loss of
seniority, stoppage or postponement of future
chances of promotion etc. and, therefore, there was
no stigma affecting the future career of the public
servant by the order terminating his employment
for unsatisfactory work and conduct. "The enquiry
against the respondent was for ascertaining whether
he was fit to be confirmed. An order discharging a
public servant, even if a probationer, in an enquiry
on charges of misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or
other disqm~lification, may appropriately be regarded
' a.s one by way of punishment, but an order discharging a probationer following upon an enquiry to ascertain whether he should be confirmed, is not of that
nature x :x: x x x
The third proposition in tho
latter (Gopi Kishore Prasad's) case refers to a.n
enquiry into allegations of misconduct or inefficiency
with a view, if they were found established, to
imposing punishment and not to an enquiry whether a probationer should be confirmed. Therefore,
the> fact of the holding of an enquiry is not decisive
pf the question. What is decisive is whether the ortler is by way of punishment, in the light of the tests
laid down in Parskotuim Lal Dhingra' s case (1)."
In this case the enquiry made by the Sattlement Officer was made with the object of ascertaining whether disciplinary action should be taken
against the appellant for his alleged misdemeanour.
"
It was clearly an enqiry for the purpose of taking
. {I) (1958) S.C.R.828.
198B
MadanGoμl
v.
8ttit1 af Punj•IJ .
ShsT. J.
Mada• C.p>I
v,
Stlll• ti PunJol
Shoh J.
722
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1003]
punitive action including dismissal or removal from
serviee if the appellant· was found to have committed
the misdemeanour charged against him. Such an
enquiry and order consequent upon the report made
in the enquiry will not fall within the principle of
Ram Narayan Das's case(').
The appeal is therefore allowed·and the order
passed by the High Court is set aside and the order
passed by Mr. Justice BishanNarain is restored with
costs in this Court and the High Court,
: Appeal allowed. ·
ISHWARI PRASAD MISHRA
v.
MOHAMMAD ISA
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR. K. C. DAB GUPTA and
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ,)
Appellate Oourt-Duty of the appellate Jutiges in dealing
with the Judgment of the lower court -Criticism of the trial JudY
or the witneases-Extravagant language to be avoided.
In a suit instituted by the appellant for the specific
performance of an agreement of sale executed by the respondent, the latter disputed the genuineness and validity of the
agreement and its considration. The trial court decreed the ·
suit but on appeal the High Court reversed the findings of
the trial court and dismissed the suit. In the appeal filed by
the appellant, the Supreme Court went into the evidence in
the case elaborately and came to the conclusion that the
decision of the trial cotJrt that the suit agreement was genuine
and valid and was supported by consideration, was right and
that the High Court erred in reversing that decision. In the
Judgement delivered by it, the High Court had passed severe
strictures against the trial court suggesting that the decision
of the trial court was based on extraneous considerations.
\I) (1958) S.C.R. 828.
•
•