State of U.P. v. Ram Chandra Trivedi

A B 462 STATE OF U.P. _v._ RAM CHANDRA TRIVEDI _September_ I, 1976 _[_ H. R. KHANNA, R. S. SARKARIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.]. _Practice-Duty_ _of High Court when there is_ confiic~ _between_ _decision.o_ _of_ _the_ _Supreme Court-Upsettinf! concurrent_ _findin!JS_ _of_ _fact_ _in_ _second_ _appeal-_ _Propriety._ _Constitution_ _of_ _India,_ 1950 _Art._ _311-Termlnation_ _of_ _services_ _of_ _temporary_ C _servam-Protection_ _of_ _article when applicable._ D E F G H The respondent was appointed as a temporary clerk in an engineering ::fivision of the Government. The attempt of another clerk to impersonate an:! appear for him in a departmental examination was detected. The Executive Engineer obtained explanations from both the clerks and reported the ·matter to the Superintending Engineer, who brought the matter to the notice of the Chief Engineer. The Chief Engineer wrote to the Superintending Engineer to award suitable punishment. The Superintending Engineer passed the order that · the respondent a "temporary clerk is hereby served with one month's notice to the effect that his services shall not be required after one month from the date of receipt of this notice." The respondent filed a suit challenging the order on the ground that the termination was one passed by way of punishment and therefore attracted Art. 311 of the Constitution; and since the provisions of tha Article had not been complied with the order was void. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the suit. But the High Court went through the official correspondence preceding the passing of the impugned order, and o~rving that a close scrut'ny of the feels on record showed that the order was passed by way of r punishment on the basis of the enquiry proceeding and as a result of the recommendation by the Executive Engineer followed by the direction issued by Chief Engineer, allowed the second appeal. Allowing the appeal to this Court, HELD : (!) It is no longer open to any ohe to urge that the cons'tutional position in regard to cases of the present nature is not clear. An examination of the decisions of this Court shows that there is no real conflict in their _ratio_ _decidendi._ Even if there is a conflict, the proper course for a High Court i~ to find out and follow the opinion expressed by larger benches of this Court in pre. ference to those expressed by smaller benches of this Court. This practice is followed by thi; Court itself and has hardened into a rule of law. [475B-C] _Union_ _of_ _India_ & _A nr._ v. _K._ S. _Subramanian,_ [1977] _1_ S.C.R. 87, followed. . . _State_ _of_ _U.P._ & _Ors_ v. _Sughw Singh_ [1974] 2 S.C.R. 335: (1974) _1_ S.C.C. 218, _The State_ _of_ _Punjab<_ v. _P.S. Cheema_ A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1096, _Satish Chandra_ _Anand_ v. _The Union_ _of_ _India_ [1953] S.C.R. _655,_ _Shyam I.al_ v. _State_ _of_ _U.P._ [1955] _1_ S.C.R. 26, _Parshotam Lal Dhingra_ v. _Union_ _<Yf_ _India_ [1958] S.C.R. 828, _Gopi Kishore_ _Praso<J_ v. _Union_ _of_ _India_ A.LR. 1960 S.C. 689, _The State_ _of_ _Oris.rn_ & _Anr._ v. _Ram Narayan Das_ [1961] I S.C.R. 606, _Madan Gopa/_ v. _State of_ _Punjab_ [1963] 3 S.C.R. 716, _Rajendra Chandra Banerjee_ v. _Union_ _of_ _India_ [1964] 2 S C.R. 135, _Champc1klal_ _Chimanfal Shah_ v. _The Union_ _of India_ [1964] 3 S.C.R. 190, _Jagdlsh Mitter_ v. _Union_ _of_ _India_ A.I.R. 1%4 S.C. 449, _State_ _of_ _Punjab_ & _Anr._ v. _Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur_ [1968] 3 S.C.R, 234, _Union_ _of_ _India_ U.P. _v._ RAM CHANDRA TRIVEDI _(Jaswant Singh,_ _J.)_ 463 _&_ _Ors._ v. _R._ _S._ _Dhaba_ (1969] 3 S.C.C. 603. _State_ _of_ _Bihar_ & _Ors._ v. _Shiva_ A _BJUkshuk Mishra_ (1971] 2 S.C.R. 191, _R. S._ _Sir.ti_ v. _The State of U.P._ & Or~. [1974] 3 S.C.R. 754, _Shamsher Singh_ & _Anr._ v. _State_ _of Puniab_ [1975] 1 S.C.R. 814 and _The Regional Manager_ & _Anr._ v. _Pawan Kumar Dubey_ [1976] 3 S.C.R. 540. referred to. '(2) Before it is held that an order terminating the services of a Government servant amounts tQ punishment the Court must hold that either of the two tests, namely, (a) that the servant had, a _right to the pdst_ or (b) that h.e had B been visited with evil consequences such as forfeiture of pay etc., is satisfied. Therefore, an order terminating the services of a _temporary servant or proba,_ _tioner_ under the Rules of employment and without anything more will not attract Art. 311. Where a departmental enquiry is. contemplated but an enquiry is not in fact proceeded with, Art. 311 will not be attracted unless it can be shown that the order, though unexceptionable in form, is ma<le foJliowing a report based on misconduct. Even though misconduct, negligence, illefficiency or other disqualification may be the _motive_ for the order of termination, if a right exists under the contract or the rules to terminate his services, then Art. C 311(2) is not attracted unless the misconduct or negligence is the very _founda-_ _tion_ of the order. Where there are no express words in the impugned order itself, which throw a stigma oh the Government servant, the Court would not delve into secretariat files to discover whether some kind or stigma could be inferred on such research. [469 A-B; 473 C; 471 H; 475 Fl _Parshotam Lal Dliingra_ v. _Union_ _of_ _India_ [1958] S.C.R. 828, _R._ _S._ _Sia/_ v. _The State_ _of_ _U.P._ _&_ _Ors._ [1974] 3 S.C.R. 754, _Shamsher Singh_ _&:_ _Anr._ v. D _State_ _of_ _Punjab_ [1975] 1 S.C.R. 814 and _l. N. Saksemi_ v. _State_ _of_ _Madhya_ _Pradesh_ [1967] 2 S.C.R. 496 followed. ( 3) The respondent was a temporary hand and had no right to the post. Under the contract of service and the service rules applicable to him the State had the right to terminate his services by giving him one month's notice. The order _ex-facie_ is an order of termination of service _simpliciter._ It dOC8 not cast any stigma on the respondent nor does it visit him with evil consequences, nor is it founded on misconduct. Therefore, the respondent could E not Invite the Court to go into the motive behind the order and claim the protecti6n of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. [475 D-E] { 4) The High Court failed to appreciate the true legal and constitutional position and upset the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below, ignoring the well settled principle of law that a second appeal cannot be entertained on the ground of erroneous findings of fact, however, gross the error might seem to be. [475 G-H] F _Paras_ _Nath Thakur_ v. _Smt. Mohani Das_ _&:_ _Ors._ (1960] 1 S.C.R. 271 _Sri_ _Sinna Ramanuja_ !~er _&_ _Ors._ v. _Sri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer_ _&:_ _Anr._ [196::i] 2 S.C.R. _509,_ _P._ _Ramachandra_ _Ayyar_ v. _Ramalingam_ [1963] 3 S.C.R. 604 and _Madamanchi Ramappa_ & _Anr._ v. _Muthaluru Bojappa_ [1964] 2 S.C.R. 673, referred lo. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 258/76. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 3-1-75 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 2261/66. G .. _N._ _Dikshit_ and _0._ _P._ _Rana,_ for the Appellant. _Promod Swarup_ and _Manoj Swarup,_ for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWi\NT SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against _6_ . H 8 ### c D E F G H 464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] l S.C.R. the judgment and decree dated January 3, 1975, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad setting aside the judgment and decree dated July 27, 1965, of the Second Additional Civil Judge, Jhansi, whereby the latter affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the respondent's suit for declaration that order dated November 29, 1961, passed by the Superintending Engineer, Circle IV, Irrigati'Oll Works, Jhansi, U.P. terminating the services of the respondent was void and ineffective in law and he was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2147 /as arrears of pay and dearness allowance from the appellant. The facts leading to this appeal are : The respondent herein was appointed as a temporary clerk in Gur Sarain Canal Division, Jhansi, on May 16, 1954. Seven years. later, he was required to appear in a departmental examination which was held in July, 1961. On July 12. 1961, an optional typewriting test was held by the Department In that test the Executive Engineer, Investigation and Planning Division. Jhansi, it is alleged, detected Gopal Deo Santiya, a clerk of Bhandcr Canal Division, attempting to personatc and appear for the respondent. He obtained t11e explanation of both the clerks and reported the matter to the Superintending Engineer of his Division. Considering the explan:itions tendered by the clerks to be unsatisfactory, the Superintending Engmeer brought the matter to the notice-of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Lucknow. The Chief Engineer wrote back to the Superintending Engineer asking him to award suitable punishment to the aforesaid two clerkis. The Suoerintending Engineer thereafter issued orders terminating the services of both the clerks. The order that was ### passed in respect of and served on the respondent ran as follows : "No. E-70/IV /259 Dated Jhansi, November 29, 1961 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Shri Ram Chandra Trivedi, Temoorary Routine Grade Clerk is hereby served with one month's notice to the effect that his services shall not be required after one month from the date of receipt of this Notice. Sd/- S. P. Sahni. Superintending Engineer." The respondent attempted to have the above order rescinded by making representations to the Chief Engineer, and the Minister of Irrigation, U.P. which proved abortive. The respondent thereupon challenged the aforesaid order of termination of his services by instituting the aforesaid suit averring _inter_ _a/ia_ that the order not being an order of termination of his service _simnliciter_ but bPing one passed bv way of punishment, attracted the applicability of Article 311 of the Constitution which not having been complied with rendered the order void and ineffective in law. The suit was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the respondent was only a temporary hand; that under the contract of service as also the rules applicable. to temporary Government servants, the respondent was liable to be dischamed any time even though an enquiry in respect of a charge of misconduct might have been insti u. P.,._ RAM .CHANDRA TRIVEDI _(la.want_ _Singh,_ _I.)_ .465 tutcd against him; and that the i;,,pugned ~rder not having bc~n l?assed as a measure of punishment but being a sunple .order of t~rmma!!~n. of the respondent's services without cas~ng any stigma on him or .vmting him with evil consequences, was valid both under the aforesa~d rules and the contract of senice. The grotmds of attack made agamst the impugned order did not find favour with the trial Court w~ich dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trrnl Court, !11.e rc;opond00t took tho matter in appeal to the Second Add1rlonal ClVll Judge, Jhansi, who affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Both the Courts found that the impugned order was valid in law as it was a simple order of termination of service and not having been passed by way of punishment, it did not attract the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. Dissatisfied with these judgments, the respondent preferred a second appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which as already stated was allowed by a learned Single Judge of that Court. A B \\1tile oversetting the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the coiirts below and decreeing the respondent's aforesaid suit, the learned single Judge went through the official correspondence preceding the passing of the impugned order and observed that a close scrutiny of the D facts on record showed that the order was passed by way of punishment on the basis of the enquire proceedings and as a result of the recommendation made by the Executive Engineer followed by the direction issued by the Chief Engineer that the respondent should be suitably. punished. It is against this judgment and decree that the present appeal has been preferred by the State of U.P. . .Mr. Dixit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has urged that the High Court acted illegally in reversing the concurrent findings of fact ;urived at by the courts below and quashing the impugned order which was a simple order of temtination of the respondent's services and had been validly passed in accordance with the rules relating to temporary Government servants and the contract of service. #### !Ie has further contended that the learned Single Judge could not probe into the departmental files to support his finding that the impugned order was passed against the respondent by way of punishment. He has in support of his submissions, relied upon a number of decisions of this Court. E F _As_ against this, lt has been vehemently urged by Mr, Garg, learned cotmsel for the reSJ?Ondent, that the constitutional position in regard to the orders of the impugned nature _is_ not well settled in view of the G c.on1licting ~ecisions of this Court particularly in view of the observations made m _State_ _of_ _U.P._ _&_ _Ors._ v. _Suf!har_ _Sineh(')_ anrl _ThD_ _State_ _of Punjab_ v. _P._ _S. Cheemi1(_ _[2]_ _),_ Mr. Garg has further contended that the c_rrcumsta_nccs attending the issue of the impugned order clearly establish that 11 was passed by way of. punishment . . I~ would, i!I our opini~n, be appropriate at the outset to refer to the H dec1S1ons of this Court which have an important bearing on the instant (I) [1974) 2 S.C.R. 335=[1974] l S.C.C. _218._ (2) A.LR 1975 S.C. _1096 •._ 466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1977) 1 S.C.R. A B ##### c D E F G H "Shortly put, the principle is that when a servant has right to a post or to a rank either under the terms of the coniraet of employment, express or implied, or under the rules governing the conditions of his service, the termination of the service of such a servant or his reduction to a-lower post is by itself and _prima facie_ a punishment, for it operates as a forfeiture of his right to hold that post or that rank and to get the emoluments and other benefits attached thereto. But if the servant has no right to the post, as where he is appointed to a post, permanent or temporary either on probation or on an officiating basis and whose temporary service has not ripened into a quasi-permanent service as defined in the Temporary Service Rules, the termination of his employment does not deprive him of any right and cannot, therefore, by itself be a punishment. One test for determining whether the termination of the service of a Government servant is by way of punishment is to ascertain whether the servant, but for such termination, had the right to hold the post. If he had a right to the post as in the three cases hereinbefore mentioned, the termination of his service will by itself be a punishment and he will be entitled to the protection of Article 311. In other words and broadly speaking, Art. 311 (2), will apply to those cases where the Government servant, had he been employed by a private employer will be entitled to maintain an action for wrongful dismissal'. removal or reduction in rank. To put it in another way, if the Government has" by contract, express or implied, or, under the rules, the nght to terminate the employment at any time, then such termination in the manner provided by the contract or the rules is, _prima_ _fade_ and _per se,_ not a punishment and docs not attract the provisions of Art. 311. It does. not. however: follow that, except in the three cases mentioned above, m all other cases, termination of (!) (1953] S.C.R. 655. (2) [1955] l S.C.R. 26. (3) [1958] S.C.R. 828. case and to dispel the doubts sought to be created by Mr. Garg with regard to the constitutional position in relation to the applicability of Article 311 ( 2) of the Constitution, resulting from the said decisions. _In_ _Satish Chandra Anand_ v. _The Union of_ _India('),_ it was held by . this Court that any and every termination of service does not amount to dismissal or removal and a termination of service brought about by exercise of a contractual right is not _per se_ dismissal or removal. On the same reasoning, this Court laid down in _Shyam_ _Lal_ v. _State_ _of_ _U.P._ (") that the termination of service by compulsory retirement in terms of specific rule regulating the conditions of service is not tantamount to the infliction of punishment and does not attract Article 311(2). In _Parshotam Lal Dhingra_ v. _Union_ _of_ /lldia( [3] ) which is regarded as the Magna Carta of the Indian Civil Servant, Das, C.J. speaking for the majority made the following illuminating observations : _;f_ ( u. P. _v._ RAM CHANDRA TRIVEDI _(Jaswant Singh,_ J.) 467 service of a Government servant who has no right to his post, e.g., where he was appointed to a post, temporary or permanent, either on probation or on an officiating basis and had not acqurred a quasi-permanent staLUs, the term1nac1on cannot, in any circumstance, be dismissal or removal from service by way of punishment. Cases may arise where the Government may find a servant unsuitable for the post on account of misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other dis• qualification. If such a servant was appointed to a post, permanent or temporary, either on probation or on an officiating basis, then the very transitory character of the employment implies that the employment was terminable at any time on reasonable notice given by the Government. Again if the servant was appointed to a post, permanent or temporary, on the express condition or term that the employment would be terminable on say a month's notice as in the case of _Satish Chander_ _Anand_ v. _The Union_ _of India_ (supra), then the Government might at any time serve the requisite notice. In both cases the Government may proceed to take action against the servant in exercise of its powers under the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, or under the rules regulating the conditions of service, if any be applicable, and ordinarily in such a situation the Government will take this course. But the Government may take the view that a simple termination of service is not enough and that the conduct of the servant has been such that he deserves a punishment entailing penal consequences. In such a case the Government may choose to proceed against the servant on- the basis of his misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or the like and inflict on him the punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction carrying with it the penal consequences. In such a case the servant will be entitled to the protection of Art. 311 (2). The position may, therefore, be summed up as follows _:_ Any and every termination of service is not a dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. A termination of service brought about by the exercise of a contractual right is not _per se_ dismissal or removal, as has been held by this Court in_ Sat~sh _Chander_ ;tn~nd v. _The_ __LJnion_ _of_ _India_ (supra). Likewise the termmat1on of service by compulsory retirement in terms of a specific rule regulating the conditions of service is not tantamount to the infliction of a punishment and does not attract Art. 311 (2), as has also been held by this Court in _Shyam Lal_ v. _The State_ _of_ _Uttar_ _Pradesh_ (supra). In either of the two above mentioned cases the termination of the service did not carry with it the panel consequences of loss of pay, or allowances .under r. 52 of the Fundamental Rules. It is true that the misconduct negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification may be th; motive or the inducing factor which influences the Government to take action under the terms of the contract of employment or the specific service rule, nevertheless, if a A B ## _c_ D E F G H A B ## c D E F G H SCPREJ\1E COURT REPORTS [1977) l S.C.R. right exists, under the contract or the rules, to terminate the s·crvice the motive operative on the mind of the Government is as Chagla C.J. has said in _Shriniras_ _Ga11esh_ v. _Union oj_ l~dia(') wholly irrelevant. In short, if the termination of service is founded on the right flowing from contract of the service rules tUJcn, _prima facie,_ the termination is not a punishment and carries with it no evil consequences and so Art. 311 is not attracted. But even if the Government has, by contract or under the rules, the right to terminate the employment without going through the procedure prescribed for inflicting the punishment of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, the Government may, nevertheless, choose to punish the servant and if the termination of service is sought to be founded 011 misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification, then it is a punishment and the requirements of Art. 311 must be complied with. As already stated if the servant has got a right to continue in the post, then, unless the contract of employment or the rules provide to the contrary, his services cannot be terminated otherwise than for misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other good and sufficient cause. A termination of the service of such a servant on such grounds must be a punishment and, therefore, a dismissal or removal within Art. 311, for it operates as a forfeiture of his right and he is visited with the evil consequences of loss of pay and allowances. It puts an indelible stigma on the officer affecting his future career. A reduction in rank likewise may be by way of punishment or it may be an innocuous thing. If the Government servant has a right to a particular rank, then the very reduction from that rank will operate as a penalty, for he will then lose the emoluments and privileges of that rank. If, however, he has no right to the particular rank, his reduction from an officiating higher rank to his substantive lower rank will not ordinarily be a punishment. But the mere fact that the servant has no title to the post or the rank and the Government has, by contract, express or implied, or under the rules, the right to reduce him to a lower post does net mean that an order of reduction of a servant to a lower post or rank cannot in any circumstances be a punishment. The real test for determining whether the reduction in such cases is or is not by way of punishment is to find out if the order for the reduction also visits the servant with any penal consequences. Thus if the order entails or provides for the forfeiture of his pay or allowances or the Joss of his seniority in his substantive rank or the stoppage or postponement of his future chances of promotion, then that circum'>tance may indicate that although in form the Government. had purported to exercise its right to term;nate the employment or to reduce the servant to a lower rank under the terms of the contract of emoloyment or under the rules, in truth and reality the _ ~_.'."'.~ernmen!_ ~~s terminated the employment as and by way (!)A.LR. 1956 Bo'll. 455. u. P. I'. RAM CHANDRA TRIVEDI _(Jaswa./11_ _Singh,_ J.) 469 of penalty. The use. of the expression 'l'Crminate', or. 'discharge' is not conclusive. In spite of the use of sud1 inno cuous expressions, the court has to apply the two test~ mentioned above, namely, ( J) whether the servant had. '1: nght .to the post or the rank or (2). whethe~ he has been V!Slted?w1th evil consequences of the kmd herembeforc r~fcrred to . If the case satisfied either of the two tests then it must be held that the servant has been punished and the termination of his service must be taken as a dismissal or removal from service or the ·reversion to his substantive rank must be regarded as a reduction in rank and if the requirements of the rules and Art. 311, which give protection to. G~vernment serv~nt have not been complied with, the termmat1on of the. serv1i::e or the reduction in rank must be held to be wrongful and m violation of the constitutional right of the servant." A B ## c D E F G H _(_ In _Gopi Kishore Prasad_ v. _Union_ _of_ _1n4ia('),_ it was ~eld by this Court that if the Government proceeded agamst the probationer m the direct way without casting any aspersion on his honesty or eompete~ce, his discharge wonld not have the effect of removal by way of pumshment, but if instead of taking the easy course, the Government chose the more difficult one of holding an enquiry into his alleged misconduct and branded him as a dishonest and incompetent officer, it would attract Article 311 ( 2) of the Constitution. In _The State_ _of_ _Orissa_ _&_ _Anr._ v. _Ram_ _Narayan Das(2)_ where ON. July 28, 1954, a notice was served on the respondent who was appointed as a Sub-Inspector on probation in the Orissa Police Force in the year 1950 to show cause why he should not be discharged from service for gross neglect of duties and unsatisfactory work and where the explanation tendered by him was considered to be unsatisfactory by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police who passed an order discharging the respondent from service for unsatisfactory work and conduct and where the respondent contended that the order was invalid on two grounds : (i) that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action within the meaning of Article 311 (2), and (ii) that he was not afforded an opportunity to be heard nor was any evidence taken on the charge, it was held that the order of discharge did not amount to dismissal and did not attract the protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution as the respondent was a probationer and had no right to the post held by him and his services were terminated in accordance with the rules which permitted his being discharged at any time dilring the period of probation. The case of _Madan Gopal_ vt _State_ _of_ _Punjab(')_ where the order terminating the employment of the appellant who was a temporary Government servant wa~ ouashed on the ground that it was iu the nature of an order of punishment which had been passed without complying with the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution is clearly distinguishable. In that case, the order of termination of the (l)-A-:1.R: 1960 S.C. 689. (2) [1961] 1 S.C.R. 606. (3) [1963] 3 S.C.R. 716. A B ## c D E F 470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 1 S.C.R. appellant's service which was prw~ded by ~ enquiry in~o his alleged misconduct was based on the findmg of misconduct which amounted to casting a stigma affecting his future career. In _Rajendra Chandra Banerjee_ v. _Union_ _of_ _India(')_ where the appellant was appointed as a probationer for one year (which was extended from time to time) on condition that his services might be terminated without any notice and cause being assigned during that period and he agreed and joined the service and where later on during the period of his probation, he was called upon to show cause why his services should not be terminated and he was finally informed that the explanation given by him was not satisfactory and his services would stand terminated on a specified date, it was held by this Court that the termination of his service was not by way of punishment and could not amount to dismissa! or removal within the meaning of Article 311. In _Champaklal Chimanlal Shah_ v. _The Union_ _of India(')_ where the appellant, whose appointment being temporary, was liable to be terminated on one month's notice on either side was informed without assigning any cause after the expiry of about five years tliat his services would be terminated with effect from a specified date but before the termination, he was called upon to explain certain irregularities and was also asked to submit his explanation and to state why disciplinary action shou!d not be taken against him and certain preliminary enquiries were also held against him in which he was not heard, but no regular departmental enquiry followed and the proceedings were dropped, it was held by this Cou):t after considering the cases of _Gopi_ _Kishore Prasad_ v. _Union_ _of_ _India_ (supra), _State_ _of_ _Orissa_ v. _Ram_ _Narayan Das_ (supra), _Madan Gopal_ v. _State_ _of_ _Punfab_ (supra) and _Jagdish Mitter_ v. _Union_ _of lndia(_ _[3 ]_ _)_ that such a regular departmental enquiry though contemplated was not held against the appellant and no punitive action was taken against him, there was no question of the case being governed by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. It was further held in that case that it is only when the Government decides to hold a regular departmental enquiry for the purpose of inflictmg one of the three major pw1ishments that the Government servant gets the protection of Article 311. \ In _State_ _of Punjab_ _&_ _Anr._ v. _Shri Sukh_ _Raj Bahadur(_ _[4 ]_ _)_ where the Punjab Government reverted the respondent from his officiating appointment in the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) to his G substantive post in the Delhi Administrative after issuing him a charge sheet to which the respondent replied but the enquiry was not proceeded with, it was held by this Court that the respondent could not complain against the order reverting him to his former post because the order of reversion was not by way of punishment. In that case, Mitter, J. who spoke for the Bench laid down the following propositions : H (I) [1964] 2 S.C.R. 135. (2) (1964] 5 S.C.R. 190. (3) A.IR. 1964 S,C. 449. (4) [1968] 3 S.C.R. 234. u. P. _v._ RAM CHANDRA TRIVEDI _(Jaswant Singh,_ J.) 4 71 "l. The services of a temporary servant or a probationer can be terminated under the rules of his employment and such termination without anything more would not attract the operation of Art. 311 of the Constitution. 2. The circumstances preceding or attendant on t;he order of termiiiation of service have to be examined in each case, the motive behind it being immaforial. 3. If the order visits the public servant with any evil consequences or casts an aspersion against his character or integrity, it must be considered to be one by way of punishment, no matter whether he was a mere probationer or a temporary servant. 4. An order of termination of service in unexceptionable form preceded by an enquiry launched by the superior authorities only to ascertain whether the public servant should be retained in service, does not attract the operation of Art. 311 of the Constitution. 5. If there be a full-scale departmental enquiry envisaged by Art. 311 i.e. an Enquiry Officer is appointed, a charge sheet submitted, explanation called for and considered, and order of termina~ion of service made thereafter will attract the operation of the said Article." The principles laid down in _Parshotam Lal Dhingra's case_ (supra), _'Champaklal Chimanlal Sfiah's_ case (supra), and _Shri Sukh_ _Raj_ _Baha-_ _dur's_ case (supra) were reiterated by this Court in _Union_ _of_ _India_ & _Ors._ v. _R._ _S._ _Dhaba('),_ _State_ _of_ _Bihar_ & _Ors._ v. _Shiva Bhikshuk_ _Mishra(_ _[2 ]_ _)_ and _R._ _S. Sial_ v. _The State_ _of U.P._ & Ors.( [3] ) where it was laid down that the test for attracting Article 311 (2) of the Constitution is whether the misconduct or negligence is a mere motive for the order of reversion or termination of service or .whether it is the very foundation of the order of termination of service of the temporary employee. The form of the order, however, is not conclusive to its true nature. The entirety of circumstances preceding or attendant on the impugned order must be examined by the court and the overriding test will always be whether the misconduct is a mere motive or is the very foundation of the order. In _R._ _S._ _Sial_ v. _The State_ _of_ _U.P._ & _Ors._ ( [8] ) to which one of us (brother Khanna, J.) was a party, it was made clear. in unambiguous ·terms that it may be taken to be well settled that even though mis· conduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualifications may be the motive or the inducing factor which influence the Government to take action under the express or implied terms of the contract of employment or under the statutory rule, nevertheless if a right exists, under ##### (1) [1969) 3 s.c.c. 603. (2) [1971] 2 S.C.R. 191. {3) [1974] 3 S.C.R. 754. A B ## c D E F G H 472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l 977] 1 S.C.R. A the contract or the rules to terminate the services the motive operating · on the mind of the Governments is wholly immaterial. The same rule would hold good if the order passed is not for tiermination of service but for reversion of a Government servant from a higher post to a lower post which he holds in a substantive capacity. B ## c D E F G H The decision of this Court in _State_ _of_ _Uttar Pradesh_ & _Ors._ v. _Sughar Singh_ (supra) where the order of the respondent's reversion held to have been passed by way of punishment to which our attention has been drawn by Mr. Garg and which has led to a 1;ertain amount of misunderstanding turned upon a clear statement made before the High Court by the Standing Counsel for the State that the foundation of the order of reversion was the adverse entry made in his confidential character roll. The constitutional position has now been made crystal clear by a Bench of seven Judges of this Court in _Shamsher Singh_ & _Anr._ v. _State_ _of_ _Punjab(')_ where the learned Chief Justice after an exhaustive review of the decisions of this Court observed : "No abstract preposition can be laid down that where the services of a probationer are terminated without saying anything more in the order of termination than that the services are terminated it can never amount to a punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case. If a probationer is discharged on the ground of misconduct, or inefficiency or for similar reason without a proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against his discharge it may in a given case amount to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. Before a probationer is confirmed the authority concerned is under an obligation to consider whether the work of the probationer is sa.tisfactory or whether he is suitable for the post. .Jn the absence of any Rules governing a probationer in this respect the authority may come to the conclusion that on acount of inadequacy for the job or for any tempernmental or other object not involving moral turpitude ·the probationer is unsuitable for the job and hence must be discharged. No punishment is involved in this. The authority may in some cases be of the view that the conduct of the probationer may result in dismissal or removal on an inquiry. But in those cases the authority may not hold an inquiry and may - simply discharge the probationer with a view to giving him a chance to make good in other walks of life without a stigma at the time of termination of probation. If, on the other hand, the .probationer is faced with an enquiry on charges of misconduct or inefficiency or corruption, and if his services are terminated without following the provisions of Article 311( 2) he can claim protection. (1) [1975] 1 S.C.R •. 814. \ ### / ##### _{_ u. P. _v._ RAM CHANDRA :rRLVEDI _(laswa.nt Singh,_ J.) 473 The fact of holding an inquiry is not always conclusive. What is decisive is whether the order is really by .way .of ##### punishment ...... A probationer whose .terms,of service provided -that it could be terminated without any notice and without any cause being ·assigned could not claim the protection of Article 311 ( 2). A B ## c D E F G _An_ _order.terminating the services_ _of a temporary servant_ _or probationer under the Rules_ _of_ _Employment and without_ _anything more will not attract Article_ 311. _Where a_ _depai;t-_ _mental enquiry is. contemplated and_ _if_ mi _enquiry is not in_ _fact_ _proceeded wilh Article_ 31l _will not be attracted unless_ _it can be shmyi1' Jhat_ _the order though unexceptionable in_ _form_ .is m{ld~ _Jot/owing__ _a report based on ·misconduct."_ ·. - ~ . . . • \ . _t._ - J ~ ' - . ., ·- . - . -~ ' . Tb.e Division Bench judg;neni of.this Court in _P;_ _S._ _Cheema's_ case (supra) on which strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Garg is also clearly distinguishable and no help can be derived therefrom by the responcl.ttnt. - In that case, both the trial Court and the first appellant Court J:iad come to a concurrent finding of fact that the impugned order of termination .was by way of punishment. It would also be seen tqat in that case on a representation being made by the respondent to .tJ:ie then Chief Minister of the State, the latter after consideration of the matter had ordered that in view of the respondent's previous good recorci, .he did not deserve the "punishment of termination of · service only on account of a few bad reports and that the respondent - should .continue jn service and his case should be reviewed after he earned another report from the -Excise and Taxation Commissioner for the year 1964-65". In a r.ecent decision of this Court in _The Regional Manager_ _&_ _Anr._ v. _Pawan Kumar Dubey(')_ to whi_ch oiie of us was a party, _Sughar_ _Singh's_ case (supra) .w.hich is the sheet anchor of Mr. Garg's cp'ntention was also adverted to and it was explained thereiii that that case did not depart from earlier decisions on applicability of Article 311 (2) or Art.icle 16 of the Constitution. The following observations made in _Pawan Kumar Dubey's_ case (supra) should suffice to clear. the doubts that may still be lurking in some quarters as to the ratio deci### dendi of Sughar Singh's case (siipra) :- · · · ·· -- · ·· · - _ -''We thi111< _tha(the prinCiples involved in applying Article 311 (2) having be«n suffic\ently explained in _Shamsher_ _Singh's_ case (supra) it should no longer be possible to urge that _Sughar Singh's_ case (supra) could give rise to some misapprehension of the law. Indeed, we do not think that the principles of law declared and applied so often have really changed. But the application of the same law to the differing circumstances and f~cts of various cases which (I) [1976] 3 S.C. R. 540. H A B ## c D E F G H 474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 1 S.C.R. have come up to this Court could create the impression sometimes that there is some conflict between different decisions of this Court. Even where there appears to be some conflict, it would, we think, vanish when the ratio decidendi of each case is correctly understood. It is the rule deducible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of a case which constitutes its ratio decidendi and not some conclusion based upon facts which may appear to be similar. One additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are appli~d in each case to similar facts. This Court's judgment in _Sughar_ Singh'~ case (supra) shows that it was only following the law on Article 311 (2) of the Constitution as laid down repeatedly earlier by this Court. It specifically referred to the following cases : _Parslwttam Lal_ _Dhingra_ v. _Union_ _of India_ (supra); _State_ _of Punjab_ v. _Sukh_ _Raj_ _Bahadur_ (supra); _State_ _of_ _Orissa_ v. _Ram_ _Narayan Das_ (supra); _R._ _C._ _Lucy_ v. _State_ _of_ _Bihar(1•) Jagdish Mitter_ v. _Union_ _of_ _India_ (supra); _A._ _G. Benjamin_ v. _Union_ _of_ _India(_ _[2]_ _);_ _Ram_ _Gopal Chaturvedi_ v. _·State_ _of_ _Madhya Pra-_ _desh(8); Union_ _of_ _India_ v. _Gajendra_ Singh(~); _Divisional_ _Personnel Officer_ v. _Raghavendrachar(_ _[5]_ _);_ _Union_ _of_ _India_ v. _loswant_ _Ram(_ _[6]_ _);_ _Madhav_ v. _State_ _of_ _Mysore(_ _[7]_ _);_ _State_ _of_ _Bombay_ v. _Abraham(_ _[8]_ _)._ In _Sughar Singh's_ case (supra), this Court summarised the propositions of law deducible from the cases mentioneq above; and, while considering the applicability of some of the propositions of law to. the facts of the case, it did observe that, on the face of it, the action against Sughar Singh did not appear to be punitive. Nevertheless, on a total consideration of all the facts, including the admission in the High Court before Verma, C.J. by the Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, that the reversion order could not be explained except as a result of the adverse entry made two years earlier, it had finally applied the _ratio_ _decidendi_ of the _State_ _of_ _Bihar_ v. _Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra_ (supra), where this Court had affirmed the opinion of the High Court, on facts, that the reversion was not in the usual course or for administrative reasons but it was after the finding on an enquiry about some complaint against the Plaintiff and by way of punishment to him. On this view of the case, it was not really necessary for this Court to conside_r whether the reversion of Sughar Singh was contrary to the provisions of Article 16 also. (1) C.A. No. 590 of 1962 decided on 23-10-1963 . (2) [1967] 1 S.C.R. 718. (3) [1970] 1 S.C.R. 472. (4) [1972] 2 S.C.R. 660. (5) [1966] 3 S.C.R. 106. (6) A.LR. 1958 S.C. 905. (7) [1962] 1 S.C.R. 886. (8) [1962] Supp. 2 S. C.R. 92. u. P. _v._ RAM CHANDRA TRIVEDI _(Jaswant_ _Singh,!.)_ 475 We do not think that _Sughar Singh's_ case (supra) in any way, conflicts with what has been laid down by this Court previously on Article 311 (2) of the Constitution or Article 16 of the Constitution." Thus on a conspectus of the decisions of this Court referred to above, it is obvious that there is no real conflict in their ratio decidendi and it is no longer open to any one to urge with any show of force that the constitutional position emerging from tlil.e decisions of ti).is Court in regard to cases of the present nature is not clear. It is also to be borne in mind that even in cases where a High Court finds any confliCt between the views expressed by larger and smaller benches of this Court, it cannot disr.egard or skirt the views expressed by the larger benches. The proper course for a High Court in such a case, as observed by this Court in _Union_ _of India_ _&_ _Anr._ v. _K._ _S._ _Subrama-_ _nian(')_ to which one of us was a party, is to try to find out and follow the opinion expressed by larger benches of this Court in preference to those expressed by smaller benches of the Court which practice, hardened as it has into a rule of law is f~llowed by this Court itself. A B ### c Keeping in view the principles extracted above, the respondent's suit could not be decreed in his favour. He was a temporary hand and had no right to the post. It is also not denied that both under D the contract of service and the service rules governing the respondent, the State had a right to terminate his services by giving him one month's notice. The order to which exception is taken i'S _ex facie_ an order of termination of service _simpliciter._ It does not cast any stigma on the respondent nor does it visit him with evil consequences, nor is it founded on misconduct. In the circumstances, the respondent could not invite the Court to go into the motive behind the order and claim E the protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. We, therefore, agree with the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the High Court was in error in arriving at the finding that the impugned order was passed by way of punishment by probing into the departmental correspondence that passed between the superiors of the respondent overlooking the observatioris made by this .Court in _l. N. Saksena_ v. _State_ _of_ _Madhya Pradesh(_ _[2 ]_ _)_ that when there are no express words in the impugned order itself which throw a stigma on the Government servant, the Court would not delve into Secretariat files to discover whether some kind of stigma could be inferred on such research. We also find ourselves in agreement with the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that the High Court failed to appreciate the true regal and constitutional position and upset the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below that the impugned order was not by way of punishment ignoring the well settled principle: of law that a second appeal cannot be entertained on the ground of erroneous finding of fact, however gross the error might seem to be. (See _Paras_ (I) [1977] 1 S.C.R. 87. ( 2) [19671 2 S.C.R. 496. F G H A 476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977} 1 S.C.R. _Nath Thakur_ v. _Smt. Mohani Dasi_ & _Ors.(1); Sri Sinna Ramanuja_ _Jeer_ & _Ors._ v. _Sri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer_ & _Anr.(_ _[2]_ _); R._ _Ramachandra_ _Ayyar_ v. _Ramalingamc:1)_ and _Madamanchi Ramappa_ & _Anr._ v. _Mutha-_ _luru Bojappa(4)._ For the foregoing reasons, the contentions of Mr. Dixit are upheld and those of Mr. Garg are repelled. B In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and, decree of the High Court, restore the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and dismiss the respondent's suit. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are, however, left to pay and bear their own costs of this appeal. V.P.S. (1) [1960] _1_ S.C.R. 271. (2) [1962) 2 S.C.R. 509. (3) [l963J 3 S.C.R. 604. (4) [1964] 2 S.C.R. 673. _Appeal allowed._