1963 (2) TMI 58 - SC - Indian Laws

Probationer not entitled to Article 311(2) protection; termination deemed lawful

RANENDRA CHANDRA BANERJEE Versus UNION OF INDIA

RANENDRA CHANDRA BANERJEE Versus UNION OF INDIA - 1963 AIR 1552, 1964 SCR (2) 135 Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.2. Applicability of Rules 49 and 55-B of the Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules.3. Compliance with Rule 55-B before termination of service.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution:The appellant contended that he was entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, which was not afforded to him, rendering the termination of his services illegal. It is well settled that Article 311 applies to temporary government servants where dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank is sought to be inflicted by way of punishment. However, it is equally well settled that where the services of a temporary government servant are terminated not by way of punishment, Article 311 will not apply. The appellant, being a probationer, had no right to the post and was liable to be discharged at any time during the probation period. The termination of his service was not by way of punishment and thus did not amount to dismissal or removal within the meaning of Article 311(2). Therefore, the High Court was correct in holding that the appellant was not entitled to the protection of Article 311(2).2. Applicability of Rules 49 and 55-B of the Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules:The appellant argued that he was governed by Rules 49 and 55-B of the Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules and was entitled to their protection. However, the High Court held that these rules did not apply to the appellant due to the specific terms of his appointment, which allowed termination without notice and without cause during the probation period. Rule 3(a) of the Rules excludes the application of the Rules in cases where special provisions are made by or under any law for the time being in force. The High Court concluded that the terms of the appellant's appointment constituted such a special provision, making Rules 49 and 55-B inapplicable.3. Compliance with Rule 55-B before Termination of Service:The appellant alternatively argued that he was entitled to the protection of Rule 55-B, which mandates that a probationer be apprised of the grounds for termination and given an opportunity to show cause against it. The High Court initially held that Rule 55-B did not apply due to the terms of the appellant's appointment. However, upon further analysis, it was concluded that Rule 55-B did apply, as no special provision by or under any law was shown to exclude its application. The appellant was given notice on July 4, 1952, detailing the defects in his work and was afforded an opportunity to show cause. His explanation was considered, and he was informed on July 31, 1952, that his services would be terminated after August 31, 1952. This process constituted sufficient compliance with Rule 55-B, as the appellant was apprised of the grounds for termination and given an opportunity to respond.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, with the Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court's findings that the appellant was not entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) and that Rule 55-B was complied with before the termination of his services. The termination was in accordance with the terms of the appellant's appointment and the rules governing his probationary service, and not as a measure of punishment. Therefore, the appellant's contentions were rejected, and the appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.