PETITIONER: RATANLAL MALVIYA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF M.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT14/01/1993 BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (CJ) BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (CJ) JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) ANAND, A.S. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC Supl. (1) 73 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The special
leave is granted.
2. The appellant was appointed as a social worker on ad
hoc basis in 1981. In the year 1987, he was declared to
have acquired quasi-permanent status. His services were
terminated by an order passed simpliciter on December 3,
1991. He filed a departmental appeal which was ultimately
dismissed. He thereafter challenged the order of his
termination by filing a suit which was later transferred to
the Administrative Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal
dismissed the suit on several grounds including that of
limitation. The judgment of the Tribunal is under challenge
before us in the present appeal.
+ Arising out of SLP No. 1417 of 1992
74
3. It is the admitted position before us that the appeal,
which had been filed before the department and was
ultimately dismissed, was a statutory one. But the Tribunal
has not correctly appreciated the position and has assumed
that there was no right of appeal under the statute and that
the so-called appeal of the appellant was merely a
representation. It therefore held that the transferred suit
was barred by rule of limitation. If the limitation is
calculated from the date when the appeal was dismissed, the
suit was admittedly within time. We, therefore, reverse the
finding of the Tribunal recorded against the appellant on
the plea of limitation.
4. On merits the Tribunal has dismissed the suit holding
that the Civil Surgeon who had initially appointed the
appellant did not have any power to do so. The learned
counsel for the respondent has placed before us certain
administrative instructions indicating that the Civil
Surgeon was subsequently vested with the power in this
regard. Subsequent to this date the Civil Surgeon made an
order granting quasi-permanent status to the appellant.
Since, this order was passed when the Civil Surgeon was
fully empowered to do so, it is futile to suggest that the
appellant cannot be treated to be a quasi-permanent servant
under the State. Consequently, the order terminating his
services without holding an inquiry cannot be sustained. We
are, therefore, of the view that the appellant is entitled
to succeed in the suit.
5. The question now arises as to the relief which should
be granted to the appellant at this stage. We have examined
the service record of the appellant produced before us, and
referred to in the order of Tribunal, which indicates that
he was negligent and repeatedly remained absent for long
periods without leave. His services were otherwise also not
satisfactory. These were the reasons which compelled the
authorities concerned to take steps for terminating his
services. Although, the manner in which his services were
terminated was not in accordance with law, it is clear that
the authorities which took decision to terminate his
services were acting bona fide and there was justification
for them to have taken up the question as to whether the
appellant should be permitted to continue in the service or
not. As, we are interfering in the present matter purely on
a technical ground, we are of the view that the appellant is
not entitled to the salary for the past period. However,
since he has been involved in this litigation, we direct
that a sum of Rs 5000 (rupees five thousand only) shall be
paid to the appellant as consolidated amount against his
dues for the back period. Subject to this, he will not be
entitled to claim anything for the past period.
6. For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal, set
aside the impugned judgment and direct the respondent-State
to reinstate the appellant with effect from February 1, 1993
and pay the aforesaid amount of Rs 5000 within two months
from today. If the appellant is not reinstated, as
indicated, he will still be entitled to his pay and
allowances with effect from February 1, 1993.
————-
75