1984 (1) TMI 341 - SC - Indian Laws

Unlawful Discharge Reversed: Reinstatement with Benefits

ANOOP JAISWAL Versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR.

The Supreme Court held that the appellant's discharge from the Indian Police Service was violative of Article 311(2) and Article 14 of the Constitution. ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the order of discharge was violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.2. Whether the order of discharge was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.3. Whether the order of discharge was based on conjectures and surmises.Summary:1. Violation of Article 311(2):The appellant, a probationer in the Indian Police Service, was discharged from service without an enquiry into the alleged misconduct of arriving late for a ceremonial drill practice on June 22, 1981. The Supreme Court held that the order of discharge, though non-committal on its face, was in reality a termination based on misconduct. The Court emphasized that the true character of the order should be determined by reading it along with the recommendation of the Director, which was the basis for the order. The Court concluded that the alleged act of misconduct was the real foundation for the discharge, and since no enquiry was held as required u/r 12 of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954 and Article 311(2) of the Constitution, the order was liable to be struck down.2. Violation of Article 14:The appellant contended that the order of discharge was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court noted that similar explanations were called from other probationers, but only the appellant was dealt with severely. The Court found that the Director wished to make an example out of the appellant for others, which indicated a discriminatory approach. Thus, the order was also violative of Article 14.3. Conjectures and Surmises:The appellant argued that the order was based on conjectures and surmises. The Court observed that the other instances of alleged misconduct mentioned in the counter affidavit were mere allegations and not substantiated. The Court held that the real foundation for the discharge was the incident on June 22, 1981, and the other instances were put forward only to strengthen the otherwise weak defense. Therefore, the order was based on conjectures and surmises.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and the impugned order dated November 5, 1981, discharging the appellant from service. The appellant was ordered to be reinstated with the same rank and seniority, along with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary and allowances. The appeal was allowed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.