Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. The tests for determining whether termination was a termination simpliciter or by way of punishment laid down in earlier decisions were reiterated in Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. (Dr) Mohd. S. Iskender Ali25 and Nepal Singh v. State of U.P.26 The latter was a case of termination simpliciter on account of the drive launched by the Inspector General of Police for weeding out police officers who were unsuitable or unfit to be continued in service. On the facts and circumstances of that case, it was held that the question whether the appellant, who was a temporary servant, should be retained in service, directly arose during the drive launched to weed out unsuitable officers and it was for this reason that the termination order was upheld, particularly as there was nothing to show that the termination order was made by way of punishment. In another decision which, incidentally, again is Nepal Singh v. State of U.P.27, the Court held that where the services of a temporary government servant are terminated on the ground that his reputation for corruption makes him unsuitable for retention in the service, the State, or for that matter, any statutory employer, must take great care when proceeding to terminate a career on the ground of unsuitability, to ensure that its order is founded on definable material, objectively assessed and relevant to the ground on which the termination is effected. It was observed that the Court will view with great disfavour any attempt to circumvent the requirement of Article 311(2). In Anoop Jaiswal v. Govt. of India28 it was found on a consideration of the entire record that the real foundation for the order of discharge of the appellant probationer was the alleged act of misconduct. This, it was observed, made the impugned order punitive in nature and was, therefore, held to be bad.

(h)Where the employer is satisfied of the misconduct and the consequent desirability of termination, it is dismissal even though the order is worded innocuously. However, where there is mere suspicion of misconduct and the employer does not wish to bother about it, and, instead of going into the correctness of guilt, feel like not to keep the employee and thus terminate him, it is simpliciter termination and not punitive.

(i)Where the termination simplicitor is preceded by an enquiry, preliminary or regular, the Court would see the purpose, object of such enquiry as also the stage at which, the order of termination has been passed.