1969 (4) TMI 122 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court validates termination of temporary Civil Judge under Rule 12

Ram Gopal Chaturvedi Versus State of Madhya Pradesh

The Supreme Court upheld the termination of a temporary Civil Judge's services under Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants Rules. The Court ... - Issues:1. Termination of services of a temporary Civil Judge under Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-permanent Service) Rules, 1960.2. Constitutionality of Rule 12 and its compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.3. Validity of termination order without consultation with the State Public Service Commission under Article 320(2)(c) of the Constitution.4. Allegation of passing the termination order as a form of punishment without following the principles of natural justice.Detailed Analysis:1. The appellant, a temporary Civil Judge, had his services terminated under Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants Rules, which allowed termination on one month's notice. The High Court upheld the termination, stating that the order was not punitive but in accordance with the rules governing temporary government servants not in quasi-permanent service.2. The appellant argued that Rule 12 was unconstitutional for not consulting the State Public Service Commission and violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court found no merit in this contention, stating that Rule 12 applied uniformly to all temporary government servants and did not confer arbitrary discretion, as termination could be done for administrative reasons.3. The appellant also contended that the termination order was invalid for not consulting the State Public Service Commission as required by Article 320(2)(c) of the Constitution. The Court dismissed this argument, citing a previous case that clarified the non-mandatory nature of such consultation and the absence of any cause of action for the public servant.4. Allegations were made that the termination order was passed as a form of punishment without giving the appellant a chance to defend against the accusations. The Court found that the order did not cast any stigma on the appellant's character, was not punitive, and did not trigger the protections of Article 311 of the Constitution, as it was not passed with a punitive intent.5. Additionally, arguments were raised regarding the violation of natural justice principles, citing precedents where orders were quashed for lack of opportunity to be heard. However, the Court distinguished those cases, stating that the appellant, being a temporary government servant, did not have a vested right to the office, and thus, the termination did not deprive him of any such right.6. The State Government's decision to terminate the appellant's services based on the recommendation of the High Court was also challenged. The Court held that the government acted appropriately in following the High Court's advice, as the High Court has control over the subordinate judiciary.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the termination of the appellant's services under Rule 12 and finding no grounds for the allegations of unconstitutionality, violation of natural justice, or improper influence by the High Court.