Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus SMT. KAMLA DEVI AND ANR.

Decided
9 May 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 644 · 1996 INSC 651

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.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

p. 644, margin G

Though the respondent was appointed on February 14, 1972 on ad hoc basis, she was posted at different places during which period she remained either on leave or alJsconded from duty, except joining the places nearer to her native place Lakhimpur Kheri. Consequently, authorities had taken action on September 23, 1980 to terminate her service in terms of letter of appointment. The respondent had approached the Tribunal for reinstatement with back wages. The Tribunal has set aside the order of termination holding that the termination is violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution since no enquiry was conducted against the respondent. The same came to be upheld by the High Court in the impugned order in Writ Petition No. 1589(SS)/94 passed on April 5, 1994.

p. 645, margin A

The question, therefore, is : whether it is necessary for the Government to conduct an enquiry as contemplated under Article 311(2) read with the statutory rules? In the State of U.P., there are statutory rules, viz., U.P. Temporary Government Services Rules, J.975. Rule 14(a) of the said Rules provides for termination of the service of temporary Government servant either with one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof.

p. 645, margin C

Under the.sc circumstances, when the Government exercised the statutory power, the need to conduct enquiry as contemplated under Article 311(2) by necessary implication got obviated. The High Court, therefore, was wrong in holding that the enquiry under Article 311(2) needs to be conducted to terminate the services of even the temporary Government servant.

p. 645, margin D

The appeal is accordingly allowed. However, any salary paid to the respondent during the continuance in services pursuant to the interim direction would not be recovered from her. There 'viii be no order as to costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 645, margin E