Kerala High Court
Mathew P. Thomas vs Kerala State Civil Supplies ... on 11 January, 2000
Equivalent citations: [2000(85)FLR532], (2000)IILLJ886KER
JUDGMENT Narayana Kurup, J.
1. The appellant was appointed as Junior Manager (Quality Control) in the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. as per Ext. P1 order of the Managing Director dated October 7, 1994, subject to the following condition among other things:
"You will be on probation for a period of two years within a continuous service of three years. You will be absorbed in the regular service of this Corporation only on satisfactory completion of the period of probation. If your performance during the period of probation is found unsatisfactory, the Corporation reserves the full right to terminate your service without any prior notice."
2. The appellant on his joining duty was posted as Junior Manager (Quality Control), Calicut. While so, on October 31, 1996 the first respondent herein received a Fax message from the Regional Manager, Calicut intimating that the consignment of Bengal Gram (small) received at the District Depot, Kannur on October 23, 1996 and which was inspected by the appellant on October 24, 1996 and certified to be acceptable as within specification and as per sample, on visual inspection by the Assistant Manager (incharge) of the Depot was found to be not in conformity with tender samples and was hence rejected. On receipt of the above intimation, the Manager (Quality Control) was directed to inspect the District Depot and submit a report. On the basis of the Inspection Report dated November 4, 1996, it was reported that (a) the stock of Bengal gram found fit by the appellant Junior Manager (Quality Control) and rejected by the Assistant Manager was analysed and it was found that refractions exceeded the rejection limit and that the consignment ought to have been rejected then and there; (b) the green gram available at Super Market, Kannur was also analysed and comparison was made with the analysis results as reported by the appellant. The refractions furnished by the appellant was reported to be false and that the consignment ought to have been rejected and (c) the inspection of Toor Dhal and Bengal gram available at District Depot, Kannur was also analysed and the two analysis reports compared and it was observed that both the commodities ought to have been rejected by the appellant who instead recommended for acceptance of the stock.
3. On receipt of the above report, Ext. P2 show cause notice No. E5-17135/96 dated December 12, 1996 was issued to the appellant to show cause why his services should not be terminated. The appellant submitted Ext. P3 explanation whereupon he was granted personal hearing by the Managing Director who after considering his explanation and the entire records in the case ordered termination of his services as per Ext. P4 proceedings dated January 6, 1997. Aggrieved by Ext. P4 order of termination, the appellant filed Ext. P5 appeal before the Chairman and Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Board of Revenue (Civil Supplies), Thiruvananthapuram who in turn forwarded the same to the Sub Committee as per Rule 71 of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Services Rules. On receipt of Ext. P5 appeal, the Sub Committee consisting of the Chairman and Directors considered the same at its sitting held on May 16, 1997. On perusal of the entire documents, and personal hearing and detailed consideration of the appeal petition and the grounds raised for sustaining the same, the Sub Committee found that the Manager (Quality Control) had on inspection and analysis of samples reported that the consignments were inferior and should have been rejected by the appellant. It was also found that the Managing Director of the Civil Supplies Corporation had issued show cause notice to the appellant and also granted an opportunity of personal hearing before Ext. P4 order of termination was passed. He was also given a warning as early as on December 22, 1995 for accepting sub-standard consignment. It was, therefore, held that the contention of the appellant that termination proceedings were issued without conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter was without merits. The contention of the appellant that the disciplinary authority had not sought any technical advise was also found to be baseless as the Manager (Quality Control) who was tbe technical head of the Quality Control Department had inspected and analysed the samples and had reported that the samples ought to have been rejected. Thus, on a detailed consideration of Ext. P5 appeal petition, the entire files and relevant documents and after affording a personal hearing to the appellant, the Sub Committee as per Ext. P6 proceedings held that Ext. P4 proceedings of the Managing Director terminating the services of the appellant is strictly in order and no grounds have been made out in the appeal petition for interfering with the same and dismissed Ext. P5. The appellant thereupon moved this Court by filing O.P. No. 10259 of 1997 for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash Exts. P4 and P6 and for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from terminating his services as Junior Manager (Quality Control) and to allow him to continue in service irrespective of the issuance of Exts. P4 and P6 and also for other incidental reliefs.
4. The learned single Judge by the Judgment impugned in this appeal dismissed the Original Petition with certain observations and hence this appeal.
5. Having heard learned counsel on either side, we are not persuaded to interfere with the judgment under challenge in this appeal. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that since Ext. P4 order of termination stigmatised him in so far as his service has been terminated for 'unsatisfactory service', it should have been preceded by a full fledged enquiry. We are not prepared to accept the aforesaid contention. At the outset, we may state that in several cases and in particular in State of Orissa v. Ram Narayana Das, AIR 1961 SC 177 : (1961-I-LLJ-552), it has been held that the use of the words 'unsatisfactory work and conduct' in the termination order will not amount to a stigma vide the decision reported in Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, 1999 (3) SCC 60 : (1999-I-LLJ-1054). Therefore, the mere use of the expression 'unsatisfactory service' in Ext. P4 order of termination will not amount to a stigma vitiating the said order. Had it been a case that while passing Ext. P4 order of termination, the appellant was stamped as person of 'bad reputation', 'corrupt' and an unreliable officer who had outlived his utility or that the employer had lost confidence in him, it would have been possible for this Court to hold that it is a clear case of stigma and the order of termination is punitive and being so, it should have been preceded by a full fledged departmental enquiry under the relevant rules. But the position here is entirely different. All that Ext. P4 order of termination says is that the service of the appellant has been terminated on account of 'unsatisfactory service' which in our view will not amount to stigma, as already noticed. Of course, Ext. P4 order was preceded by a show cause notice and a personal hearing, the object of which was to find out if the appellant could be allowed to continue in service and not to find out if he was guilty; see (1961-I-LLJ-552) (SC) (supra) and the decision reported in Ranendra Chandra Banerjee v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1552. Hence, we have no hesitation in rejecting this contention of the appellant.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that when a major penalty is imposed on the appellant, he should have been given a fair hearing We are afraid, we cannot accept this contention either for the reason that termination has been ordered not as a penalty for any misconduct, but for unsatisfactory service of the appellant during his tenure as a probationer. As a matter of fact the explanation of the appellant was also called for before issuing Ext. P4 order of termination. The appellant submitted his explanation on December 26, 1996 to Ext. P2 show cause notice which has been considered in detail by the competent authority before passing Ext. P4 order of termination. Accordingly, we reject this contention put forward by the appellant.
7. The further contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that since Ext. P2 show cause notice contains major charges against the appellant, his service should not have been terminated without those charges being enquired into and found proved against him in a duly conducted enquiry, giving him an opportunity to defend himself and prove his innocence. Here again, we fail to appreciate the contention of the appellant since, in our view, the appointing authority focused his attention and zeroed in on the appellant only on the question of his unsatisfactory performance as a probationer by wrongfully recommending acceptance of bad stock for purchase and distribution. Of course, Ext. P2 show cause notice would state that the appellant colluded with the suppliers for undue pecuniary benefits and that he betrayed the confidence reposed on him as a responsible officer of the Corporation. The appellant would have been on a sound wicket had the appointing authority pursued those charges mentioned as (4) and (5) in Ext. P2 and a finding recorded. From a perusal of the files, we find that the appointing authority has abandoned those charges and concentrated only on the lapses committed by the appellant in wrongly recommending acceptance of bad stock, as already observed. No finding at all is entered on the charges of collusion and betrayal of confidence mentioned as item Nos. (4) and (5) in Ext. P2. Therefore, we hold that the contention in this regard is without merit.
8. Thus, on the whole, we are satisfied that the learned single Judge rightly declined to interfere with the orders impugned in the writ petition. While dismissing the Original Petition, the learned single Judge observed that if the Corporation does not withdraw ground No. (4) stated in the show cause notice to the effect that the appellant/petitioner colluded with the suppliers for undue pecuniary benefits, they should frame proper charge and conduct proper enquiry following the procedure laid down in the departmental proceedings and if the Corporation withdraws the said charge, no enquiry need be conducted and the order would stand. We, on our part, would add that in addition to ground No. (4) stated in Ext. P2 show cause notice, ground No. (5) mentioned therein also is liable to be withdrawn by the respondents.
9. The Writ Appeal is dismissed subject to the above observation.