STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusSMT. KAMLA DEVI AND ANR.

A                          STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
                                         v.
                       SMT. KAMLA DEVI AND ANR.

                                   MAY 9, 1996

B    [K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.j

          Service Law :

          U.P. Temporary Government Services Rules, 1975.

c         R. 14(a}-Employee appointed on ad hoc basis-Frequent absence
    from du~Services tenninated in tenns of appointment lettei--Claim for
    reinstatement and back wages-Tribunal setting aside order of tennination
    holding the same as violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution-Held,
     when Government exercised statuto1y power, need to conduct inquiry as
D   contemplated under Article 311(2) by necessary implication got obviated.

          Constitution of India, 1950.

          Article 311(2}-Temiination of services of temporary employee without
    inquiry>-Govemment of U.P. tenninating services of employee appointed on
E   ad hoc basis, exercising power under Rule 14(a) of U.P. Temporary Govem-
    ment Services Rules, 197~Held, in view of exercise of statutory power, order
    of tennination is not violative of Article 311(2).

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                     Civil Appeal No.
    8996/1996.
F
         From the Judgment and order of the 5.4.1994 of the Allahabad High
    Court in W.P. 1589(SS) of 1994.

          lrshad Ahmad from the Appellants.

G         Pravir Choudhary for the Respondents.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          Leave granted.

H         We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
                                         644
                              STATE v. KAMLADEVI                                645

           Though the respondent was appointed on February 14, 1972 on ad A
    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 ll
    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.

          The question, therefore, is : whether it is necessary for the Govern-
                                                                                       c
    ment 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.                     D
           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)              E
    needs to be conducted to terminate the services of even the temporary
    Government servant.

           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           F
    costs.

    R.P.                                                         Appeal allowed.