Arbitrary termination power in service rules cannot bypass Article 14 or be saved by reading in hidden safeguards

A service rule authorising termination of a permanent employee on notice or pay in lieu of notice, without reasons, hearing, or guiding criteria, was treated as arbitrary and inconsistent with Article 14 because it permitted insecure tenure and unguided selection. The Court also held that such a clear and unrestricted provision could not be saved by reading in reasons, limits, or procedural safeguards, since that would amount to rewriting the rule rather than interpreting it. The result was that the impugned termination power could not survive constitutional scrutiny.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Regulation 9(b) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952, enabling termination of a permanent employee on notice or pay in lieu of notice without assigning reasons or holding an inquiry, was constitutionally valid; (ii) whether the provision could be saved by reading into it limitations, reasons, or procedural safeguards.

Issue (i): Whether Regulation 9(b) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952, enabling termination of a permanent employee on notice or pay in lieu of notice without assigning reasons or holding an inquiry, was constitutionally valid.

Analysis: The Regulation conferred a wide power to terminate service simpliciter in circumstances beyond probation, misconduct, fixed-term appointment, or contractual expiry, but it did not prescribe any guiding criteria for its exercise. The Court held that a statutory corporation is an authority within Article 12 of the Constitution and its service rules must conform to the guarantees of equality, fairness, and non-arbitrariness. A provision that permits termination of a permanent employee without reasons, without hearing, and without procedural safeguards creates insecurity of tenure, allows arbitrary selection, and offends the equality principle implicit in Article 14, as well as the requirement of just, fair, and reasonable procedure.

Conclusion: Regulation 9(b) was held unconstitutional and void, and the challenge to it succeeded.

Issue (ii): Whether the provision could be saved by reading into it limitations, reasons, or procedural safeguards.

Analysis: The Court accepted that reading down may be used to preserve a provision where its language is reasonably capable of a constitutional construction, but held that the doctrine cannot be used to rewrite a clear and unambiguous provision or to add an entirely new procedural scheme. Here, the language of Regulation 9(b) was held to be explicit in conferring an unrestricted power, and the suggested additions of reasons, notice of grounds, or exceptional circumstances would amount to judicial legislation rather than interpretation. The Court therefore declined to import safeguards that the rule-making authority had not expressed.

Conclusion: The provision could not be saved by reading down, and the constitutional challenge was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The impugned termination power in Regulation 9(b) could not survive constitutional scrutiny, and the appellate challenge to the High Court's invalidation of that provision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory service rule that authorises termination of a permanent employee on notice, without reasons or hearing and without intelligible guiding criteria, is arbitrary and unconstitutional under Article 14, and cannot be validated by reading into it safeguards that are not fairly borne by its text.

---