Holding

The appellant is not entitled to reinstatement to his temporary post, and the termination order stands.

Summary

P.R. Jesurtnam, a former Indian Air Force officer cashiered by a General Court Martial, was appointed on a temporary basis as Senior Research Assistant at IIT Delhi for a specific project, with a clause allowing termination on 24‑hour notice. The Ministry of Defence informed IIT of his dismissal and a 1965 Home Affairs memorandum disqualifying dismissed persons from government employment. Despite a recommendation to retain him, IIT terminated his services on 21 January 1978. The project head died in June 1978, leading to the project's closure. The appellant challenged the termination, arguing that remission of his imprisonment amounted to acquittal and that he was denied a hearing. The Supreme Court held that the appointment was temporary and terminable at any time, the project had ended, and therefore reinstatement was not warranted, dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a temporary appointment that can be terminated on 24‑hour notice can be reinstated after termination.
Whether the death of the project in‑charge and consequent closure of the project defeats any right to reinstatement.
Whether remission of a court‑martial sentence equates to an acquittal for purposes of government employment eligibility.

Legislation cited

Air Force Act, 1950s. 45, s. 65, s. 73

Subjects

temporary appointmenttermination clausereinstatementcourt martial dismissalgovernment employment disqualificationproject closurenon-liquet

Judgment

A 40

P.R. JESURATNAM
v.

B UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
I

July 22, 1981
,..

[R.S. PATHAK AND 0. CHJNNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]

c Right to reinstatement to a post which is subsequently abolished due to the
death of the project incharge-Even though the vires of the termination order,
which was anterior to the closing of the project, is in issue, Supreme Court can
-
adopt "non-liquet'' and decide the case based on the subsequent events.

The appellant, a commissioned officer in the Indian Air-Force, on a
General Court Martial was cashiered and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprison- ,. ,•.
ment for six years. Later the Central Government remitted the unexpired por·
D tion of the punishment of rigorous imprisonment. Subsequently, he was
appointed by the Indian Institute of Technology for a project work on a purely
temporary basis and subject to verification of his character and antecedents from
the Government and subject to the further condition that his services could be
terminated on 24 hours notice in writing by either side. On a reference by the
1.1.T., the Ministry of Defence by its letter dated November 19, 1977 invited
attention to the Ministry of Home Affairs Me1norandum dated May 14, 1965
E to the effect that persons who were dismissed from service were disqualified
from future employment under the Government but left it open to the I.I.T.
whether it would follow that principle in the case of the appellant. The Professor
under whom the appellant was working recommended the retention of the
appellant in service. The I.I.T. did not accept the said recommendation and by
its order dated January 21, 1978 terminated the appellant's services on the expiry
of 24 hours. A writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the validity of the
F said order was dismissed in limine by the Delhi High Court and hence the appeal
by special leave.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court,

HELD : The relief claimed by the appellant for reinstatement to his post
in the Institute must be denied for the reasons, namely, (a) the appointment was
G temporary only and could be terminated on 24 hours notice; (b) the Professor
incharge of the project passed away subsequently in June 1978 and, therefore,
the project in which he was engaged was finally closed and (c) the period for
which the appellant's post of Senior Research Assistant had been, created had
come to an end. [43 D-E]

H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 318 of
1978.
P.R. JESURATNAM v. UNION (Pathak, J.) 41

From the judgment and order dated 8th November 1978 of the A
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.W. ~<o. 786 of 1978.

Appellant in person
P.A. Francis, Miss A. Subha,hini and R.N. Poddar, for Respon·
dent No. I.
B
R.N. Sharma, R. N. Poddar and N.N. Sharma, for Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

- PATHAK, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against
c
• the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dismissing in limine the
appellant's writ petition against an order of the Indian Institute of
Technology, Delhi terminating his services.

' The writ petition by the appellant was brought on the follow·
ing allegations. The appellant, with a Master's degree in Aeronau-
D
tical Engineering, was commissioned in the Indian Air Force on
March I, 1958 and in due course was promoted to the rank of
Squadron Leader. During the years 1972 to 1975 he was an
Assistant Director in the Rockets and Missiles Department of the
Defence Research and Development Organization, New Delhi. In
January 1975, the appellant was tried by a General Court Martial E
on four charges and was convicted on two : (l) under s. 45, Air
Force Act, 1950 for behaving in a manner unbecoming of the position
and character expected of him as an officer in meeting secretly on
several occasion a foreign national, contrary to the existing order
on the subject and (2) under s. 65, Air Force Act, 1950 for impro·
- perly accepting a gift from a foreign national. He was found not
guilty on the remaining two charges. On March 4, 1975, the General
F

Court Martial directed that he be cashiered and suffer rigc•rous
imprisonment for six months. The findings and sentence of the
General Court Martial were confirmed by the Chief of the Air Staff
on April 8, 1975 and he directed that the sentence of rigorous G
imprisonment be carried out by confinement in civil prison. Sub-
sequently, by an order dated May 24, 1975, the Central Government
remitted the unexpired portion of the punishment of rigorous
i1nprisonm~nt.

The appellant was anxious to join the Indian Institute of H
Technology, Delhi and obtained a certificate to enable him to do
so. The Air Headquarters, New Delhi issued the certificate reciting
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] l S.C.R.

A that he was commissioned in the Indian Air Force and was posted
to the Defence Research and Development Organization, Ministry
of Defence. It also stated that he was tried by General Court
Martial in January, 1975 and in the result he was cashiered from
service and also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months.
The fact of remission of the imprisonment was also stated. On
B July 15, 1977, the appellant was offered· appointment to the post of
Senior Research Assistant in the Department of Applied Mechanics
of the Indian Institute of Technology for the programme of writing
a monograph on 'Large Deformation in Metallic materials' under-
taken by Professor B. Karunesh of the said Department, and it was

c
specifically mentioned that the appointment was purely temporary,
subject to verification of the appellant's character and antecedents
-
from the Government, and could be terminated on 24 hours notice
in writing by either side. The appellant accepted the appointment
and joined the Institute the next day.
/

The appellant alleges that unknown to him the Institute
D communicated with the Ministry of Defence in regard to his employ-
ment, and in reply the Ministry informed the Institute by letter
dated November 19, 1977 of the appellant's conviction and sentence
by a General Court Martial and also of the fact of remission of the
unexpired period of his imprisonment. The letter also drew the
attention of the Institute to an office memorandum dated May 14,
E 1965 of the Ministry of Home Affairs that persons who were dis·
missed from service were disqualified from future employment under
the Government and added whether the same disability would apply
-
iu the case of the appellant should be decided by the Institute.
Professor Karunesh, under whom the appellant was working, was
apparently apprised of the Ministry's letter but he recommended
F that the appellant be retained in service. On January 21, 1978, the
Institute issued an order stating that the appellant's services were
no longer required and that they would stand terminated on the
expiry of 24 hours. According to the appellant, the Chairman of
the Board of Governors of the Institute noted that as the appellant
had been dismissed for spying he should not be retained in service.
G
The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the
High Court of Delhi by an order dated November 8, 1978.

In this appeal the appellant, who appears in person contends
H that the Institute had no ground for terminating his services as the
effect of the order of remission passed by the Central Government
was to acquit him of the charges 011 which he had been found guilty,
F.R. JESURATNAM v. UNION (Pathak, J.) 43

that the Institute did not apply its mind to the facts of the case A
when deciding to terminate his services, that there was no material
to support the comment of the Chairman, Board of Governors, and
in any event the appellant was entitled to an opportunity to be
heard before his services were terminated. It was also contended
that the Director of the Institute had abdicated his powers. Reference
was also made to s. 73, Air Force Act, 1950 in support of the B
submission that the statute did not bar employment elsewhere.

We are of opinion that we need not be detained by these
contentions. The fundamental relief claimed by the appellant is
reinstatement to his post in the Institute. For the reasons which
c
-- follow that relief must be denied.

It appears from the record before us that the appellant was
appointed in the Institute in connection with the programme of
writing a monograph on 'Large Deformation in Metallic materials'
undertaken by Prof. B. Karunesh. The appointment was temporary
D
only and could be terminated on 24 hours' notice. It is averred in
the counter affidavit filed by the Institute that the post of Research
Assistant, to which the appellant was appointed, was created for
one year only. That was so, although according to the appellant
the programme extended to two years. It has also been affirmed
in the counter affidavit that on the death of Professor Karunesh in E
June, 1978 the project in which he was engaged has been dropped
and finally closed, and the period for which the appellant's post of
Senior Research Assistant was created bas also expired. There is
no reason why these averments should not be accepted.

In the circumstances, we do not see bow the appellant can be F
- granted the relief of reinstatement.

We consider it unnecessary to interfere with the order termina-
ting the appellant's services in the Institute.

The appeal is dismissed, but we make no order as to costs. G

S.R. Appeal dismissed.