Supreme Court of India
SH. HUKAM CHAND KHUNDIA versus CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ANR.
- Decided
- 9 October 1995
- Judges listed
- G.N. RAY, G.T. NANAVATI
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 146 · 1995 INSC 607
- Also cited as
- (1995) 6 SCC 534
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
The order of termination of the service of the petitioner was challenged by filing an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. Such application has been dismissed by the impugned order. The applicant was appointed as a temporary clerk by the District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide order dated March 17, 1982. He was continuing in temporary service on probation but it appears that his service was not found satisfactory and as a matter of fact on a number of occasions he was found by the successive judicial officers under whom the appellant was working that his integrity was questionable. Considering his service records, the temporary service of the applicant has been terminated.
p. 147, margin B
Mr. P.P. Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that if termination has in fact been effected by way of punishment; the real purpose of the order and not the outer form of it, is required to be looked into by piercing the veil. He has submitted that if on the score of misconduct, the service, is terminated without holding any departmental proceeding and giving the petitioner 'a chance of showing cause, the order of ex-pa1te termination of service on the ground of n1isconduct is illegal and void. Even in the case of temporary service, the provisions of Article 311 of. the constitution of India is applicable. Jn support of such contention, reference has been made to the decision of this Court in Jamai/ Singh and 01'. Etc. v. State of Punjab, [1986] 2 SCR 1022. It, however, appears to us that no discriminatory treatment has been meted out to the petitioner as was done to the employee concerned in the said decision. It appears that the service of the petitioners was found unsatisfactory for the reasons indicated hereinbefore. Since the petitionc1 was holding a temporary service and was on probation, an order of termination simplicitor has been passed without attaching any stigma against him. As the service ·records were found unsatisfactory, the termination order cannot be held arbitrary and capricious. In the aforesaid facts, we do not think that in reality an order of punishment has been passed against the petitioner in the cloack or pretence of termination simplicitor without holding any departmental proceeding thereby violating Article 311 of the Constitution. We, therefore, find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.
pp. 147–148, margin D