Appointing authority under temporary service rules controls validity of termination; order by another authority is without jurisdiction.

For a temporary Government servant, the "appointing authority" under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 is the authority that actually made the appointment; a termination issued by another authority is without jurisdiction and invalid. A temporary employee may also be discharged on a preliminary assessment of unsuitability without attracting Article 311(2) if the order is not founded on a punitive inquiry, so the termination was not set aside on that basis. The claims of non-payment of notice pay and discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 were rejected on the facts, but the invalidity for want of jurisdiction remained decisive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order terminating the services of a temporary Government servant was invalid because it was issued by an authority other than the appointing authority under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965; (ii) Whether the termination, though couched in innocuous language, was in substance punitive and therefore required compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the disciplinary rules; (iii) Whether the termination was vitiated by non-payment of one month's pay and allowances in lieu of notice and by alleged discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the order terminating the services of a temporary Government servant was invalid because it was issued by an authority other than the appointing authority under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

Analysis: The appellant was appointed by the Director of the laboratory, while the termination order was issued by the Deputy Director. The expression "appointing authority" in Rule 5(1), in the absence of a contrary definition applicable to the appellant's post, means the authority which actually made the appointment. Delegation under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 did not assist the respondents because the termination was purportedly made under the Temporary Service Rules, and no delegation under those Rules was shown.

Conclusion: The termination order was passed by an lacking jurisdiction and is invalid on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the termination, though couched in innocuous language, was in substance punitive and therefore required compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the disciplinary rules.

Analysis: A temporary Government servant has no right to hold the post, and the competent authority may terminate service on the basis of a preliminary assessment of suitability without converting the action into punishment, provided the order is not founded on a punitive inquiry. The Court preferred the larger-bench view that a termination based on unsuitability after preliminary enquiry does not, by itself, attract Article 311(2). On the facts, the punitive-character argument was not accepted as the basis for setting aside the order.

Conclusion: The termination was not struck down on the ground that it was punitive in nature.

Issue (iii): Whether the termination was vitiated by non-payment of one month's pay and allowances in lieu of notice and by alleged discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The respondents asserted that the notice pay and allowances were remitted by money order on the date of termination, and that explanation was accepted. The claim of discrimination based on retention of juniors could not prevail in view of the governing principle that a temporary employee found unsuitable may be discharged while juniors are retained if they are considered suitable.

Conclusion: These grounds did not invalidate the termination.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeal succeeded because the termination order was made without jurisdiction; the appellant was entitled to reinstatement and consequential salary relief from the relevant period.

Ratio Decidendi: For a temporary Government servant not holding a specified post, the "appointing authority" under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 is the authority that actually appointed the servant, and a termination by any other authority is without jurisdiction.

---