1978 (10) TMI 152 - SC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses appeal, upholds post abolition; suggests lump sum payment for appellant

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of mala fides or bad faith in the State Government's actions. The appellant's allegations were deemed ... - Issues Involved:1. Allegations of mala fides and bad faith.2. Appellant's non-joining of the post in 1953.3. Abolition of the post of Landscape Architect in 1958.4. Alleged violation of the Rules of Business of the State Government.5. Impact of appellant's actions on his senior officers.6. Allegations of personal vendetta by senior officers.7. Non-receipt of three months' notice for termination.8. Alleged ulterior motives for the abolition of the post.9. Confidential reports and their impact.10. Appellant's reversion to a non-gazetted post.11. Chief Minister's minute and its legal implications.12. Developments post-November 4, 1958.13. Governor's minute and its implications.Detailed Analysis:1. Allegations of Mala Fides and Bad Faith:The appellant alleged that his honest work incurred the displeasure of senior officers, leading to the abolition of his post and reversion to his parent department. The court found these allegations vague and indefinite, lacking necessary details for the other party to respond adequately. The court examined the evidence and found no proof of bad faith or malus animus.2. Appellant's Non-Joining of the Post in 1953:The appellant was appointed as Landscape Architect on May 24, 1952, but did not join by the stipulated date of June 30, 1952. Despite extensions, he failed to join until June 30, 1953, by which time the post was filled by another candidate. The court found that the appellant himself was to blame for missing the first appointment.3. Abolition of the Post of Landscape Architect in 1958:The appellant argued that the post was abolished prematurely out of malice. The court found that the post was extended monthly until November 4, 1958, and allowed to lapse thereafter. The court held that the abolition was justified and not premature.4. Alleged Violation of the Rules of Business of the State Government:The appellant argued that the abolition of the post violated the Rules of Business, requiring Council of Ministers' approval for posts with salaries of Rs. 800/- or more. The court noted that this argument was not raised in the writ petition and found that the final order was passed by the Minister and Chief Minister, making it valid.5. Impact of Appellant's Actions on His Senior Officers:The appellant reported irregularities in expenditure, which he claimed led to hostility from senior officers. The court found no evidence that these actions led to adverse decisions against him, noting that recommendations for his confirmation were made despite his reports.6. Allegations of Personal Vendetta by Senior Officers:The appellant claimed that his statement before the Estimates Committee against M.S. Randhawa led to his removal. The court found no evidence supporting this claim, noting that adverse entries predated the committee meeting, and the decision to abolish the post was made by a committee, not influenced by Randhawa.7. Non-receipt of Three Months' Notice for Termination:The appellant argued that he was entitled to three months' notice for termination. The court found no such term in his temporary appointment letter and noted that he was aware of his precarious tenure.8. Alleged Ulterior Motives for the Abolition of the Post:The appellant claimed the post was abolished to recruit Hardayal Singh Johal. The court found this argument futile, noting a 10-year gap between the abolition and Johal's appointment as Executive Engineer (Horticulture).9. Confidential Reports and Their Impact:The appellant argued that confidential reports were obtained out of malice. The court found this argument inconsequential, noting that obtaining missing reports was standard procedure and did not indicate an intention to harm the appellant.10. Appellant's Reversion to a Non-Gazetted Post:The appellant argued that his reversion to a non-gazetted post amounted to termination. The court noted that the appellant could have made a representation for a proper post in his parent department but did not do so.11. Chief Minister's Minute and Its Legal Implications:The appellant relied on the Chief Minister's minute recommending his confirmation. The court found that this minute did not give rise to any right as it was not expressed in the name of the Governor and was subsequently rescinded by a later order.12. Developments Post-November 4, 1958:The appellant pointed to the reversal of the order expunging adverse entries as evidence of bad faith. The court found that this reversal did not prove bad faith in the earlier order for his reversion.13. Governor's Minute and Its Implications:The appellant cited the Governor's minute expressing strong support for him. The court noted that the Governor realized he could not do anything for the appellant, and this did not impact the legal validity of the appellant's reversion.Conclusion:The appellant failed to prove allegations of mala fides or bad faith. The court found no evidence of improper motives or lack of bona-fides in the State Government's actions. The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs. The court suggested that the government consider making a lump sum payment to the appellant in recognition of his qualifications and service.