Holding

Termination of the principal’s services without a proper enquiry as mandated by Section 16‑G and Regulations 35‑38 is invalid and the order of termination is set aside.

Summary

Inder Pal Gupta was appointed as principal of Model Inter College, Thora on probation in 1967, with the probation period later extended by one year. In April 1969 the Managing Committee, citing a manager’s report, resolved to terminate his services and, with the District Inspector’s approval, issued a termination letter in June 1969 without conducting the enquiry prescribed under Regulations 35‑38 of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Gupta filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the termination; the High Court trial judge quashed the termination, but the Division Bench reversed that decision. The Supreme Court held that the termination amounted to a punitive dismissal carrying stigma and therefore required the procedural safeguards of Section 16‑G and Regulations 35‑38, which mirror Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court set aside the termination order, reinstated Gupta in service with full salary and benefits, and awarded costs to him.

Issues considered

Whether termination of a probationary employee without a statutory enquiry under Regulations 35‑38 violates the procedural requirements of Section 16‑G of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
Whether such termination constitutes a punishment carrying stigma, thereby invoking the safeguards of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
Whether the Managing Committee’s resolution and the District Inspector’s approval are sufficient to validate the termination absent a proper enquiry.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921s. 16-G

Subjects

termination of serviceprobationary employeedue processArticle 311(2)Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education ActRegulations 35-38stigmaemployment lawservice reinstatement

Judgment

752

•
A , INDER PAL GUPTA
v.
THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, MODEL INTER COLLEGE
THORA
B
May 3, 1984
•
[O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND E .. s. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.]
c Termination of the ser11ices of a ·P.ri'nclpal 011 probarlon-P.racedure
.Prescribed under section 16 G artd _K..egulations 35 to 38 being 1he saffie as
provided bY Article 311 (~) of the Constit.ttion of ft1dl11, the princ!ples which
govern .such ca yes of terminatio 1 should be the sami a~ fiigse' · u11der!ying Article
3JJ t2) of-the Con1·titurion-lnterpfeiation of Sttiture~-Ab~ence of ·enquiry
coniemplated under Regulations 35 ii; 36 before the termination of the pro.vi-
D sion casting a stigma is ilteg:il.

The appellant was app_ointed. on probatiOn as the' Principal of the
Model Inter College, Th,)ra on August, 28,_ 1967. His p~riod of proba~
"tion was extended bY one yc1r 'ind .thereafter by a letter d.;iied June_ 3p,
1969 addressed to him with a copy o.f a _resolution dated 27th. April, 1969
'E
passed by the Managi'lg Committee wherein various allegations were made
regarding his conduct, his services were termin1ted by the respondent •.
Aggrieved by the said orders of termi1r1tlon of his services, the appellant
•
·filed a \Wit'petiti'n NS. 4Si3 of l9iO on the file of the High Court of
Allahabad. 1he said writ p3tition was allowed on January 23, 1.973 and
the order of (errnina_tion was quas,hed. However; the special Appeal No.
31of1973 filed by Resp.oident was ac9epted and allC>wed by the Division
F Bench; Hence the appeal by special leave of tQe Court.

·Allowing tbei appe3l, \he Court,

HELD : 1. Section 16 G of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Edu-
cation Act, (Act ([.of 1921) provides that every person· employed in a
G
recognised institution shall b~ governed· by such conditio1s of service as
may be prescribed by ReguL~tions and that the Regulationg, inter alla ,may be
made in r~~p:!ct 'of tl.1e period of probJ.tion;the conditions of confir~atioo
and the procedure for the i nposition of punishmei;it. R~gulations 35 to.,
38 relate to· the proc~dure to be followed before imposing the punishment
of dismissal or removdl from- service· and they· being virtually the same as
.·provided by Article 3.1-1 (2) Of the Constitution, the principles wbjch should
H
govern· this.·i11Sta-nt case should therefore be t\le same as those under
lying Articlc'.\11 (2). Ad"mitte-d!y here no e~1quiry was held as provided
. fc;>r in. Rr-gulationc; 35 and 36. Therefore th_e non·co 1 11plian·.::~ with the ·
I

l. J>•. GtiPTA v. INTER. C(JLLEGB, THOR.A (Venkataramiah, J.) .153
r>rovisions or Section '16 G of the Act and Regulalions 35 to 3& vit.iates A
the termination order. [747F-G; 759G; 760E]

Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India [1958) S •.C.R. 828; Shamsher ·
.S/ngh.~nd Anr.·v. Stateaf Punjab, [1975] l S.C.R. 814; Anoop.faiswalv.
Government of India and Anr. [ 1984] I <icalc.105; referred to.
B
2. If the order of terminatiori carried a stigma it has to~ fall to the
groUnd unless it is prec_eded by 2,11 enquiry .as contemplated by law. A.
re~ding of the letter of termination of the service and the resolution which
·f~ims part of-that letter clearly shows~ that they ·bear a mark of disgrace
$d infamy and the appellant is visited with evil consequences. The
order of' the Division Bench is tberefore unsustainable. [762D-E]
.G
[The Cou1t declared. that the appellant continues to be in the
service of the College. with eotitl ement to all consequential ben.efitS
irlcludiog the salary and allowances as if there was no break in his
service.] [762G] .

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :. Civil. Appeal No. 571 of D
1975'

Appeal by Special leave from the judgment and Order dated
the 14th March, 1973. of the Allahabad High Court in Special ·
Appeal No. :'I of 1973.

R.K. Garg and D.K. Garg for the Appellant.

S. Rangaran and N.N. Sharma for Respondent.

S. Markandeya for Respondent:
.F
Gopa! Subramaniam and Mrs. Shobha Dikshit for Respondent.

The Jndgment of the Court was delivered by

VENKA'I;ARAM!AH, J. The appellant was appointed on proba-
tion as the Principal of the Model Inter College, Thora, District.
Bulandshahr (hereinafter refer.red t<:> as 'the College;) on August 28, G
1967 in'accorda.nce with the procedure prescribed by the Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 (U.P. Act No. II of 1921) (herernafter referred
to as '(he Act') and the Regulations made thereunder. The period
of probation prescribed was one year. Shortly before the expiry
of the p;rlod · of probation on August 25, 1968, ihe. Managing
H
Committee of the College passed a resolutir>n extending the period
o(probation of the appellant by one year. Thereafter on April 27,
154 sUPREME couttt REPOltTS (1984] 3 S.C.R.

A. 1969, the Mana3ifig· Committee met to consider the question of
confirmation of the appellant in.the post of the principal. As the
Managing Committee . was not satisfied with .the services of the
appellant, it resolved i.o terminate his services and after obtaining
the approval of the District Inspector of Schools wrote a letter dated
June 30, 1969 to.the appellant communicating its decision to tcrmi;
B · nate the services of the appellant enclosing therewith a copy of its
resolution ·dated April 27, 1969.- The letter dated June 30, 1969
reads thus :

"From To

The Manager Shri I.P. Gupta
Mqdel Jnter College Chilkana House,
Thora (Bulandshahr) Xumaran,

.
· Bridge, Saharanpur.

D Ref. No .. Dated the 30th June, 1969
\
Sub: . Termination of your service as Principal.

Dear Sir,
•
With reference to the above, I have to mention that in
"E
view of the resolution N.o. 2 of the Managing Committee
dated 27.,!.1969 (copy enclosed) and subsequent ~pproval by
the D.1.0.S. Bulandshahr you ·are hereby infor~ed that
your _sei;vice as Princip~I of this Institution is tenninated
with immediate effect. You will however be entitled to
F your dm:s in lieu of notice .. Please hand over complete
charge to Sri D.D. Gupta, who is being instruct.ed accor-
dingly, Without delay.

Please note that you cease to function as Principal of
this Institution forthwith: You-are neither authorised to
G · operate any account nor will you perform any other act in
the capacity of the Principal of this Institution henceforth.
Of course the civil suit filed .by Shri S.P. Jain of ·Meeiut ·
for the recovery of his dues.is your sole.· responsibility .
.Please see that the matter is reasonably settled failing which
you shall be. liable to any loss caused to the institution in
H that respect: While handing over charge please do not for-
get to return all papers or documents re la ting to the college, .
i. P. GUPTA '· INTER COLLEGE, THORA (Venkataramiah, J.) 7SS. ·

·or any other college property in your possession.· All A
accounts also may kindly be cleared.

Since . despite sever11\ assurai1ces you have failed to
return during the complete summer vacation, this ·nitima·
ti~n is being conveyed to you at your Sahaninpur .address,
B
in this staie ofuncertainty under registered cover to ensure
safe delivery. Recently you are reported to have been to ·
B~land'shahr for a few day~. Please come immediately and
do the needful in. the matter . •

. Sri D.O. Gupta.is to assume.office of the Principal of· C
this institution wiih immediate effect in officiating capacity
till further instruction. He may take over .charge from Sri
J.P. Gupta when he returns.

Yours faithfully,
D
s·d/-
. Manager
Model Inter College,
Tohra (Bulandshahr)"

The copy of the resolution of the . Managing Committee sent E
alongwith the above letter reads thus. :

t·
"Resolution ·passed by the Managing Committee in its meet·
iilg held on 27.4.69 terminating the prQbationary period of the
• Petitioner. ' . . · . ·
F
· 2. The report of the Manager was read. Sri I .P. Gupta, ·
who was present in the meeting also heard it. He was
asked by the Committee to have his say in respect of -,
the report,. At first he refusod t? say anything but
when the Col)lmittee requested him to consider it serio· G
usly and let ·the Committee have the benefit of his
views, he said that he had nothing to say in that respect
since he wanted·to quit himself due to circumstances. ..
On this the Committee agarn requested him to put
some such suggestion in consultation with the manager
as may be helpful for. the Committee to arrive at some H
). conclusion. In the absence of any satisfactory sugges·
SUPREME.COURT REPORTS !1984j 3 s.c.Ii:
A tion the Committee took the d'cision. At this stage the
. Principal retired out of courtesy.

On the basis of the Service Book of the Principal,
the mamger told tha.t last year his confirmation was
B due on 28.8. 1968 but in the meeting of the Committee
held on 25.8 68 in wbi~h the Principal was also present,
the report of the Manager, dated 4.7.. 68 was put as
desired by the President Reso1ution 3 date.I 25.8.68
• under the head '.'Consideration qn confi.rmatioh of
. Shri LP. Gupta; Principal" incorporates the decision
c of the Commitlee as "According to the Manager's
report the period of probation of the Principal extende\f
by one year." The proceedings book contains signa-
tures of Sri J.P. Gupta for rceiying a copy of the said
resolution. At the end of. the prooeedings the minute
book contains signaturei of Sri I.P. Gupta alongwit]l
D other members or' the Committee present.

The facts contained in the report of the Manager
being serious and not in the· interest~ of the institution,
this· Committee unanimously resolves th1t the period of
probation of Sri I.P. Gupta, Principal, be terminated
E· without waiting for ihe period to end and the manager is.
empowered to take' necessary steps in this respect. Any
thing done by him in this respect 'hall be considered
. to have ~een done by this Committee. The manager
is also authorised to hand over charge to Sri D.D.,
Gupta when necessary.
F •
Sri LP. Gupta. also came in 'With a Vote of thanks
to tile Chair the ri1eeting ended.''

The English trnnslation of the relevent part of the report of
G the Managor on the basis of which the above ~esolution.was passed
which is im:orporated in the counter affidavit filed on beh'.1lf of the
.
Managing committee reads thus :
.
"
..
"It will . be evide.nt from the above that the Principal's
stay will not be in the interest of the institution. It is also
H evident that the seriousness. of the lapses is enough to justify
dismissal but no educ~tional institution should take all
1. P, GUPTA v. H-ITER COLLEGB, Tl{ORA (Venkataramiah,f) 757
this botheration. As such my suggostion is that our purpose A
will be served by termination of his ser¥ices, Why, then,
we .should enter into any both,ration. For this, i.e. for
termination of his period of probation, too, the approval
of the D.I.O.S. will be necessary. Accordingly any delay
•
,in this matter may also be harmful to our interests.
B
Accordingly I suggest that instead of taking any serious
action, the period · of probation of Sri Inder Pal Gupta be
, terminated without waiting for th!! period to end."

·Aggrieved· by-the order of termination of his services referr~d c
to above, the appellant filed a P'titi.on u_;1d~r artile 226 of the Consti-
tuti0n in Writ Petitiol) No. 4823 of 197.0 on the file of the High
Court · of Allahaba,J chalbngii;g its correctness and pr-Lying. for
appropriate reliefs. The learned Sin~le Judge who heard the writ
petition allowed it by his order dated January 2, 1973 by quashing
the order of terminati.on: The Managing· Committee of the College D
preferred an appeal. against that decision to the Division Bench of
High Court in Special Appeal No. 31of1973. The Division Bench
allowed the appeal and dismissed the Writ 'retition filed by the
appellant by its order dated .March 14, 1973. This appeal is filed
by the. appellant against the Judgment of the Division Bench after
obtaining the special' leave of this Court under Article 136 . of the
Constitution.

The College is an institution recognised under the Act and is
gov~med by the provisions of the Act. Section 16-G of the Act
provides that every person employed in a recognised i.nstitution · F
shall ·be'governed by such conditions of service as may be prescribed
. by Regulations and that the Regulations inter alia may be made in
respect of the period of probation, the conditions of confirmation
and the· procedure for the imposition of punishment. The Board
) of High School and Intermediate Education is authorised to make
Regulations in respect of all matters which by the Act are to be· G
provided for by Regulations with the previous sanction of the State
Government. Under the Regulations so made uncler the Act, the
period of probation prescribed is one. year whether a person is a
direct recruit or has been promoted from'a lower grade in service
of the institution to a higher grade The period of probation of a
H
Principal or Head Master may be extended by a maximum period
of twelve months. At least six weeks before the date of which t4e ·
1S8 ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS tI984j 3 S.C.R.
, 1
A confirmation ·of a Principal or a Head Master ·is· due, the· Manager
. of the institution is required to prepare his confirmation papers and
· place them before the Committee of Managem~nt and the decision
of the Committee of Management in each case is required to be
re.corded in the form of a resolution. Regulation 10 provides that
a person placed on probation shall be. confirmed if he fulijls the·
B
requirements of regulation 9, bas worked with dili'genee and other-
wise proved bim~elf fit for the post for wh'ch.be was recru:ted and
his integrity is certified. Whenever the punishment of dismissal,
removal or discharge, reduction in rank or diminution in emoluc
ments is imposed, prior approval of the Inspector should. have ·10 be
obtained. Regulations 35 to 38 of the Regulations made under the
c .Act which prescribe tbe procedure for termination of the serv'ces of
an employee b~ way of punishment read. thus :

· "35. On receipt of'a. complaint. or an adverse report
of facts of a serious nature of the Committee may in the
D · ~ases of ieacbers appoint the Headmaster or Principal or
Manager as the 'mquiry officer (or the Manager may himself
set up the enquiry if such power bas been delegated ·to )lim
by the Comroitlee under rules) and iu tbe·case of the Head- .
· master or Principal, a small sub-committee, with instructions
to submi.t the report as expeditiously as possible.
E
36, · (1) The grounds on· which it is propose.ct to take
action shall be reduced in the form of a definite charge m
charges which shall be communicated to the employee
charged . and which shall be so clear and precise as to gi.ve
F. . sufficient. indication to the charged employee. of the facis
and circumstances against him. He shall be required within
three weeks of the receipt of the charge.-sheet to put in a
written statement of his defence and to state whether be •
desired 'to be heared . in person. If he or ihe inquiring
authority so desires, an oral enquiry shall be held in respect
G of such of the allegations as are not admitted. At that
enquiry such oral evidence will be heared as.the inquiring
authority ,considers· necessary. ·The person charged shall·
he entitled to cross-examine the witness, to give evidence
in person, and to have such witnesses called as he may wish; · ·
provided that the inquiring authority conducting the enquiry
H mav, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse
to call a witness. The proceedings shall contai11 a sufficient
•
). P. GUPTA v. INTEJ\ COLLEGE, THORA (Venkataramiah, J.) 75'l

record of the. evidence and statement of the findings and A
the grounds thereqf. The inquiring authority conducting
the enquiry may also, separately from these. proceedings,
make his own recommendation · regarding the punishment
to be imposed on the employee.

(2) clause (I) shall not apply where the person concern-
. ed has absconded, or where it is for other reasons. impracti-
cable to communicate with him.

(3) .All or any of tl,J.e provisions of clause (I) may for
sufficient·reasons to be recorded in writing be.waived. where
there is difficulty in observing exactly the requirements
c
·thereof and those· requirements ·can in•the opinion of the
inquiring authority be waived without injustice to the person
charged.

37. Soon after the report of the proceedings and recom-
mendation from the inquiring authority are received, .the .
Committee of Management shall meet to consider tl;>e report
of the p'roceedings and recommendation made and take., ·
decision on the case. The employee shall, however, be
· allowed, if he so desires, to appear before the Committee in
person to state his case and answer any question that may E
•
be put to him by any member present at the meeting, The
Committee shall then send a complete report ·together with
all connected papers to the Inspector 11r Regional Inspectress
as the case may be, for approval of action propos_ed by it.

38. If it is felt at any stage that the matter can be 'F
more properly dealt with by action to terminate service with
notice, this may be qone with the approval of the Inspector·
or Regional Inspectfess, _as the case may be."

It is seen from the foregoing that that the above provmons
relating to the procedure to be followed before imposing the punish- G
ment of dismissal or removal from service ate virtually the same as
provided by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and the principles
which should govern this case should, t~erefore, be the same as
those underlying Article 311 (2). The decisions in Parshotam !-al
Dhingra v. Union of Indla,( 1) Shamsher Singh & Anr. v. State of ff
(1) [19S8} S. C. R• 8~8;
•
'160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 .s.c.R.

A Punjab( 1) and Anoop Jaiswalv. Government of India & Anr(~) explain
the true legal position governing the terminaiion of the services of
a probationer. In Parshotam Lal Dhingra's case (supra), this
Court observed at prge 862 thus :

"In short, if the termination of service is founded on
B the right flowing from contract or the service rules then,
prima facie, the termination. is not a punis)1ment and carries
with
..
it no evil consequences and . \
so Art. 311 is not aitrac-
ted. But even if the Government has, by contract or under
the rules, the right to terminate the employment without
c going through the procedurli prescribed for inflicting the
punisbment of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank,
the Government• may, nevertheless,· choose to puuish
the servant and if.the termination of service is sought to be
founded cm misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other
disqualification, . \hen it is a punishll)ent and the require-
D ments of Art. 311 must be complied with."

.. The above rule applies to probationers too.
.. Admittedly no enquiry was held in this ~ase 'as· provided in
Regulations 35 and 36 of the Regulations made under the Act.
E Apparently iti. the light of the principles enunciated in Parshotam
Lal Dhingra's case (supra) the learne.d Single Judge who decided
the Writ Petition at the first instance itl the High Court observed
in ·the course of his order 'thus :

"In this petiti.on nnder Article 226 of the Constitution
F
the petitioner questio'ls the validity of the so-called termina-
tion of his service by the resolution passed by the Managing
Committee on 27.4.1969. His case~ that-the termination ,.
in the circumstances in which it has been made. by the
Managing Committee 'amounts to punishment· of removal
or dismissal from service and, the.punishment having been
.. G
imposed upon him without following" the pro~edure · prescri-
bed rtnder sec. 16-G of the Intermediate Education Act
and the regulations framed thereunder becomes vitiated.
Indeed it has not been denied or controverted in the counter
affidavit that the action against the petitbner was taken by
•
·(I) [1975] l S. C.R. 814.
(2) [1984-] I.SCALE !OS,
{ P. GUPTA v. INTER C:OLLEGE, THORA (Venkaiaramiah, J.) . 761

the Managing Committeo on serious charges of 1nismauage- A
ment brought against the Principal by the Manager. But
it was submitted py the learned counsel for the .opposite
parties that a reasonable opportunity was affordee to the
petitioner by the Managing Committee when he was faced
with the charge~ and asked to. explain qn 27.4.69, at the
meeting of the Managing C)mmittee. But the learned B
counsel for opposite parties when faced with the relevant
regulations and Sec. 16-G of the Intermediate Education ·
'Act found it difficult to. justify t!tat what was done at the
meeting of the Managing Committee on 27.4.1969 complies
with those provisions. · The attack made by the peti.tioIJer
based on -non-compliance of the relevant regulamins and c
the provisions· of Sec. 16-G of the Act on the validity of
the action taken, appear< to be sound and sustainable: No
-matter the ;ietitioner was not a permanent Principal yet he
was entitl~d to a regular show cause notice against the
charges brought and an opprtunity to be heard as requir-
D
ed by the regulations. The impugned o;der of termination
ihus was a mere camouflage and cannot be regarded in the
circumstances as having been passed by the Managing
COmn;tittee in the normal course. The District Inspector of
Schools was in error in approving the termin~tio.n in tho.se
circumstances.''

But the Division Bench of the High Court took a contrary
view. The first error in the judgment of the Division Bench lies in
its observation :

F
'Firstly, the order of termination is innocuous. It does
not refer to any allegations or. even to the report of the
Manager.'

It is seen from the letter dated June 30, 1969 by which the
services of the appellant were terminated that the resolution of the G
Man~gi~g Committee dated April 27, 1969 1s made a part of it by
treatmg 1t as an enclosure to that letter. '.fhe resolution · actually
begins with a. reforence ·to the report of the Manager, and ·slates
. that the facts contained in the report were 'serious' and 'not in the
j interests. of the institution'. · It further refers to the fact that the
· appelllmi9 was asked· to give his explanation to the alle~ations J11adq H
ip the said report. That re~ort state4 : · ;~
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.C.R. .{
A "It is also evident that the seriousness of the lapses is
enough to justify dismissal but no educational institution·
should take that botheration."
.
· The above report was the real foundation on which the deci·
sion of the Managing Committee was based. This is a case where
the order of termination issued is merely a camouflage for an qrder
imposing the penalty of termination of service ·on the ground of ·
mis~onduct. · Secondly, the· Division Bench has tried to justify the .
action of the Management by observing that since the management
· !iad to ·secure the ·approval of the District Inspector to its action,
it was.neoessary for it to give its assessment of the work of the appel~
c laiit as Pfltcipal and, therefore, 'in the context of the statutory
requirements, it cannot be said that merely bec.ause the Manager's
report or the resolution of the Managing Committee -refers ·to the
various aspects of the assessment of the performanc~ of the Principal
in terms unfavourable to him, it wpuld in law, amount to casting a
stigma upon the Principal'. It is difficult to en graft an exception of
D
the above type to the well-settled r,ule that if the order of termination
carries a· stigma, it has to fall to the ground unless it is proeeded by
an enquiry as contemplated by law. A reading of the letter of
termination of the service and the. resolution which forms.• part of ·
that letter clearly shows that they bear a mark .of disgrace or. infamy
E and that the appell~nt is visited with.evil consequences 'as explained
. in Parshotam Lal Dhingra's case (supra). The. Division Bench, ·,.;;·
ther~(ore, ·erred in holding that on 'the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, the order of termination was. a11 innocuous one and did
not earry any stigma. .The order of the Division Bench is, our
opinion, an unsustainable one and is liable to the .set aside.
F
Jn the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the. judgment.
of the Division Bench of the High Court and restore the judgment
of the learned Single. Judge. We hereby declare that the appellant
continues· to be' in the se.rvice of the College. He is entitled to all
the benefits flowi11g from this declaration including .ihe sabry and
G·. .allowances as if there was no break in his service. The: respondent
College shall also pay the costs of this appeal to the appellant.

s.R,. Appeal allowed.

• •