Temporary public service termination upheld where ordinary order, informal inquiry, and no consultation did not make it punitive or invalid.

A temporary Civil Judge's termination under Rule 12 was upheld because the rule applied uniformly to temporary government servants and was not treated as arbitrary or discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16. The termination was held not punitive or stigmatic: it was in ordinary form, did not cast stigma on character or integrity, and followed only an informal inquiry to assess whether the officer should be retained, so Article 311 and natural justice were not attracted. Absence of consultation with the State Public Service Commission under Article 320(2)(c) also did not invalidate the order. The challenge therefore failed on all substantive grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a temporary Civil Judge whose service was terminable under Rule 12 could successfully challenge the termination as unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the termination order, preceded by an informal inquiry and references to the appellant's conduct, was punitive or stigmatic so as to attract Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice. (iii) Whether absence of consultation with the State Public Service Commission under Article 320(2)(c) of the Constitution of India invalidated the termination.

Issue (i): Whether a temporary Civil Judge whose service was terminable under Rule 12 could successfully challenge the termination as unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Rule 12 applied uniformly to all temporary government servants not in quasi-permanent service and authorized termination on one month's notice. The appellant was admittedly a temporary government servant, and no term in the appointment order or agreement excluded the operation of the rule. The rule was treated as a general service condition, not as a source of arbitrary discrimination. The contention that it conferred unguided discretion was rejected because the power was exercisable for administrative reasons in circumstances that could not be exhaustively defined in advance.

Conclusion: The challenge under Articles 14 and 16 failed, and the termination under Rule 12 was held valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the termination order, preceded by an informal inquiry and references to the appellant's conduct, was punitive or stigmatic so as to attract Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The termination order was in ordinary form and did not on its face cast any stigma on the appellant's character or integrity. No charge-sheet was served and no departmental inquiry was held. The earlier informal inquiry was only to determine whether the appellant should be retained in service. Since the appellant was a temporary employee with no vested right to hold office, the order was not treated as one of punishment and did not require prior notice or hearing. The principles of natural justice were held inapplicable on these facts.

Conclusion: Article 311 was not attracted, and the termination was held not to be punitive or violative of natural justice.

Issue (iii): Whether absence of consultation with the State Public Service Commission under Article 320(2)(c) of the Constitution of India invalidated the termination.

Analysis: The Court treated the contention as unsupported in the present case and relied on the settled position that the absence of such consultation does not confer a cause of action on the public servant. The impugned termination was therefore not vitiated on that ground.

Conclusion: The termination was not invalid for want of consultation with the State Public Service Commission.

Final Conclusion: The temporary service termination was upheld in full, and the challenge to the order failed on all substantive grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: An order terminating the service of a temporary government servant in ordinary form under the applicable service rules does not attract Article 311, and is not invalid merely because it follows an informal inquiry or is issued without consultation unless the order is punitive, stigmatic, or otherwise contrary to a legally enforceable restriction.

---