Holding

The correction of an illegal confirmation order does not require a hearing, and a termination order passed without stigma after proper assessment of service records is valid and not punitive.

Summary

R.C. Tripathi, appointed as Overseer (later Junior Engineer) in the Local Self‑Government Engineering Department in 1964, was confirmed in 1975 despite a High Court injunction prohibiting such confirmations. The confirmation was later rectified by a de‑confirmation order in 1978 without giving Tripathi a hearing. In 1981 he was terminated with one month’s salary in lieu of notice on the ground of an unsatisfactory service record, which included adverse entries from 1965‑66 and 1978‑79 and an overall "average" rating. Tripathi challenged the de‑confirmation and termination, alleging lack of hearing, punitive motive linked to his union activities, and reliance on stale entries. The Tribunal and High Court upheld the termination, finding it non‑punitive and based on service records. The Supreme Court held that the illegal confirmation needed correction without a hearing and that the termination, passed without stigma and after proper assessment of service records, was valid; consequently the appeal was dismissed, but the State was ordered to pay Rs. 75,000 as compensation.

Issues considered

Whether the de‑confirmation of Tripathi’s temporary service, made to correct an illegal confirmation order, required a prior hearing.
Whether the termination of a temporary government employee, based on service records and without stigma, is valid or constitutes a punitive dismissal, especially in view of alleged union‑related motives.
Whether stale adverse entries (e.g., from 1965‑66) can be considered in assessing suitability for retention.
Whether the termination order is illegal or invalid on procedural or substantive grounds.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16
Service Rules of Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam
Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975

Subjects

temporary employeede‑confirmationtermination of serviceservice record assessmentprocedural fairnessright to hearingunion activitiespunitive dismissalstale adverse entrycompensation

Judgment

•.

RAM CHANDRA TRIPATIU A
v.
U.P. PUBUC SERVICES TRIBUNAL IV AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 25, 1994

[K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND 0.N. RAY, JJ.) B

Service Law-Temporary employee-Confinnation in violation of
Court's order-Deconfinnation-Employee deconfinned whether· entitled to
>·
opportunity of hearing--Termination simp/iciter of deconfinned employee on
account of unsatisfactory service record including remarks in character c
ro/H'alidity of.

The appellant was appointed as ;:r., ni or ":ngineer in the Local Self·
Government E;nglneerlng l;epartment of U.P. (LSGED) on October 8,
1964. By an order dated 31st August, 1975 he was confirmed with effect
from April 1, 1974. Subsequent to the establishment of U.P. Jal Nigam, he D
was transferred from LSGED to U.P. Jal Nlgam <1n the same terms and
,, conditions under whk~ he was working in LSGEb. later, when it was
detected that he was confircned contrary to an order passed by the High
' Court, an order of deconflrmatlo11 was passed without affordinl! him
opportunity or hearing. However, by an order dated April 15, 1981 his E
services were terminated on paY!llent of one month's salary in lieu or
notice.

The appellant challenged the termination order before the U.P.
Services Tribunal contending that (1) he was a permanent emplo,ee and
having rendered 16 years service, bis deconfirmation, without affording F
• him opportunity, was Invalid; (2) the terminaiion order was passed ma/a
fide for victimising him for his Trade Union actlvlties;and (3) the termlna·
tlon order, based on stale and uncommunlcated adverse remarks was In
essence a punitive order which was passed without C011owing the prescribed
procedure.
G
The U.P. Jal Nlgam contested the case contending that since the
appellant's cnnfirmatlon of the temporary service was In disregard of the
High Court1s order the mistake was rectlOed by passing de-confirmation
.... order for which no hearing was necessary; the appellant's temporary
service was terminated under the service rules by giving him one month's H
137
138 SUl'REME COURl' REPORTS [1994j 2 S.C.R.

A salary In lieu or notice as bis services were found not at all satisfactory,
and therefore, the termination order was not punitive.

The Tribunal rejected the appeUa11t's claim holding that (i) the
appellant was holding a temporary se1mce and the c;onlirmatloo given to
him by mistake was rectified; (II) the 01rder or termlo11tloo was not passed
B mala fide Gr by way or punishment but the same was passed after assessing
bis service rec:ords \l'blcb were round to be not satisfactory and (3) since
the Impugned order was passed by giving one month's salary in lieu or one ,._
month's notice as per the c:ondltlons or service and without any stigma ,
attached to the order or termlnatlon,d1e same was valid. The High Court
c upheld the order or Tribunal.

In appeal to this Court It was contended on behalf or the appellant
(1) that although no stigma was attached In the Impugned order or
termination yet, In eflect,lt was a punitive order Intended to get rid or the
appellant because or bis union actMtles; (2) that the appellant bad
D
rendered service for a total period or 16 years In LSGED and U.P. Jal
Nigam and the bogey or unsatlsractor:r service was far from truth but a
,,
)
device to get rid or the appellant by relying on stale service record for the
year 1965"'6 and an adverse entry ma1le in the year 1978-79; (3) even If It
Is assumed that adverse entries or 19711-79 bad been taken Into coasldera· l
E lion after communicating the same to the appellant and rejecting bis
representation, the fact remains that barring the said adverse entry or
1978-79, the appellant did not suffer any adverse entry in the service record
lo the recent past and the rating of the appellant as 'average' did not
constitute any adverse remark; (4) If., with such rating as 'average' the
F appellant was allowed to continue lo s1ervlce for a number of years, there
was no reason, far less a fair reason, to bold the appeUant unsuitable for
retention In service at a later stage; (5) that other temporary Junior
Engineers, who were similarly clrcum11tanced as the appellant bad been
made permanent but be was singled out for being terminated rrom service ,_
without any just and fair reason; and (6) that the termination order at an
G advanl'l!d stage or the appellant's careeir created a serious prejudice to him
thereby practically depriving him of any chance to get a suitable job
elsewhere at the late stage of life.
,..
I

~

For the respondent It was conten1ded (1) that the Tribunal had come
H to a categorical finding that the tfrnnlnation order was not made as a
R.C. TRIPA1HI v. U.P.P.S.T. 139

,, punitive measure but was passed after assessing the appellant's service
records; (2) although 33 Junior Engineers were made permanent but since
the appellant's service was found to be unsatisfactory it was decided not
A

to retain him; (3) the appellant was given chance to improve his service
over a long span of time, but unfortunately, he suffered adverse entries on
two occasions and on other occasions also the assessment of his service
record was not at all satisfactory and he was given a poor rating as
B
'average'; (4) the temporary service. was terminated according to the
service rules by giving one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice
•~· without attaching any stigma In the order of termination; (S) no stale
record was taken Into consideration and (6) even if the service recllrd of
1965-66 was Jell out of consideration, the adverse entry of 1978-79 could c
not be held to be stale entry for the purpose of considering the suitability
of the appellant in 1981.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. Since the order of confirmation of the appellant was made D
:n violation of the injunction order, the mistake commlted In passing the
'' order of confirmation was corrected; in such circumstances, the appellant
was not required to be given any opportunity of being heard for correcting
such mistake because there was no occasion to take one view or the other
in the matter of correction of the said mistake on the. basis of the repre- E
sentation to be made by the appellant. (147-E]

2. The finding of the Tribunal that die impugned order of termlna·
tion was passed without any stigma and not as a punitive measure has
been upheld by the High Court and there is no justification in taking a
contrary view simply because the appellant was a President of local union. F
There are no materials warranting a finding that he was picked up for
incurring displeasure of the higher authorities and the service was sought
to be terminated ma/a fide on some pretext. (147-F-G]
-· 3. Although the appellant had remained in service for 16 years but
the service record of the appellant was not at all convincing even within a G
span of five years prior to the date of consideration of bis suitability to be
retained In temporary service. He suffered an advel'S'! entry and despite
opportunity to make representation, such entries were maintained. The
assessment of other years of service In the recent past was also not
assuring and the appellant was ro.ted as average. If on consideration of H

..
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) 2 S.C.R.

A such service records, the appropriate commmlttee did 1101 find the appellant r'
suitable to be conOnned In service an:d the concerned authorities on
censlderalion of poor senlce record or the appellant had come to the
Omllng that he was not suitable to be relll1iued lo senice and the Impugned •
order was passe.d without any stigma an:d lo accordance with the service
rules, the same 1;annot be held Illegal or Invalid. Therefore, there ls no
B Justl01;atlon to set aside the Impugned oirder of tennlnatlon.
(147-H, 148-A-C)
The Manager, Government Branch .Press and Anr. v. D.B. Balliuppa,
(1979) 1 S.C.C. 4779; Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab, (1987)
.,·•
2S.C.C. 188. and State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla,·
c (1991) 1 s.c.c. 691, cited.

4. Allliough the service record or 11he appellant wa5 not good, the
concerned authorities had allowed him I•~ conlinue In service despite the
poor rating and adverse entries. The appdlant has advanced In age and it
will be very dimcult for him to gel suitabh• employment opportunity at this
D advanced age. The U.P. Jal Nigam is, th«refore,dlrecled to pay a sum or
Rs. 75,000 to the appellant. [148·D·F)
>
Trive11i Sliankar Saxena v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1992) Supp.1 S.C.C.
524, referred lo.
E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1238 of
1994.

From the Judgment and Order dat1:d 9.5.91 of the Allahabad High

F
Court in W.P. No. 5803 of 1%4.

Govind Mukhoty and S.C. Patel for the Appellant.
t
S.C. Maheshwari and Ms. Sandhya Goswami for the Respondents.
'
..
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G G.N. RAY, J. Leave granted. This appeal IS directed against dismiss-
al of the Writ Petition No. 5803 of 1984 passed on May 9, 1991 made by
the appellant before the Allahabad High Court challenging the order of
dismissal dated September 11, 1984 passed by the U.P. Public Services
Tribunal in Claim No, 3 of 1988/f/JV/81. The aforesaid claim petition was
H moved by the appellant before the U .P. Public Services Tribunal against

•
R.C. TRIPATill v. U.P.P.S.T. [G.N. RAY,J.) 141

the order of termination of service of the appellant dated April 15, 1981. A
The service of the appellant was sought to be terminated on payment of
'1
one month's salary in lieu of notice by giving effect to the termination of
service from the date of service of the said order of termination. It may be
stated here that such notice was served on the appellant on April 1, 1981.

The relevant facts concerning the above appeal may be stated as
B
hereunder : -

• 'IJie appellant was recommended for the pt\'it of Overseer in the
Local Self Government Engineering Department of Uttar Pradesh
(hereinafter referred to as LS GED) by a Selection Committee;. On such c
recommendation of the Selection Committee, the appellant was appointed
to the post of Overseer by the Chief Engineer, LSGED and the appellant
joined his duties as an Overseer on October 8, 1964. The post of Overseer
was later on re-designated as Junior Engineer. Accordingly, the appellant
... was treated as Junior Engineer. The appellant's service was made per- D
manent by confirming him to the said post of Junior Engineer w.e.f. April
1, 1974 by an order dated August 31, 1975 passed by the Chief Engineer,
" ~ LSGED. After the U.P. Jal Nigam was established by the Uttar Pradesh
Water Supply Swerage Act, 1975, the service of the appellant was trans-
ferred from LSGED to Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam a statutory body with the
same terms and conditions under which the appellant was working in the E
LSGED. It appears that in a Writ Petition No. 103 of 1974 filed by one
Shri Satya Viral Singh against State of Uttar Pradesh, the High Court of
Allahabad passed an interim order restraining the respondent to confirm
Junior Engineers. Despite such order of injunction which was in force, the
aforesaid order dated August 31, 1975 was passed by the Additional Chief F
;
Engineer, LSGED confirming the appellant to the post of Junior Engineer
w.e.f. April 1, 1974. After it was detected that the said order of confirma-
tion was illegal and contrary to the interim order of injunction passed in
the said Writ Petition, an order of de-confirmation was issued on February
8, 1978 by which the confirmation of the service of the appellant was
recalled and the appellant was treated as holding a temporary post of G
Junior Engineer. It may be stated in this connection, that such order of
rectification of the earlier order of confirmaticn was not made by informing
the appellant and giving him opportunity of being heard. It appears that
some orders of transfers were passed against the appellant but the appel-
!ant went on long leave on medical ground and continued to remain on H

-
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) 2 S.C.R.

A leave and after medical leave was ovc:r, he joined his earlier place of
posting at Kanpur and not ar the place where he was scheduled to join on
transfer. Thereafter, the appellant was served with the said order of
termination with immediate effect by giving one month's salary in lieu of
one month's notice.

B The appellant challenged such order of termination before the U.P.
Public Services Tribunal at Lucknow inter alia contending that he was a
permanent employee having rendered total period of service for 16 years
in LSGED and in U.P. Jal Nigam. Th: appellant contended that he was •
never informed of de-confirmation of his service and the order of termina- '
c lion was passed against him ma/a fide in view of the fact that he being the
President of U.P. Jal Nigam Employec:s Union at Kanpur, incurred the
displeasure of the higher authorities for raising voice of protest against
improper action of U .P. Jal Nigam and seeking redress11 of the grievances
of the employees of the Jal Nigam. The appellant also ccntended that there
D
was no valid reason for terminating the :service of the appellant and he was
singled out on the pretext that he had suffered adverse entries in the
confidential character roll for the•year 1965-66 and 1978·· 79. The appellant ,
-
contended thatentry for the year 1965~56 was a stale entry and could nbt ~

have been taken into consideration for deciding the suitability of the
appellant and the other adverse entry for the year 1978-79 could not also
E be taken into consideration as the same was not communicated to the
appellant. The appellant contended that the said order of termination of
service was in essence a punitive order without following the proper
procedure for passing such order. The order, therefore, should be set
aside.
F
Such submission of the appellant was disputed by lhe U.P. Jal Nigain >
by contending that the order of confirmation of the app~llant's temporary
service was passed in total disregard of the impugned (lrder of injuction
~
passed by the High Court in the saiid Writ Petition· and the mistake
committed in passing such order was later on rectified. ('or such rectifica-
G tion, no hearing was required to be given to the apNllant. It was also
contended on behalf of the U.P. Jal Nigam that service of the appellant
was not at all satisfactory. The adverse c:ntries in the confidential character
roll for the year 1978-79 was indicated to the appellant and the repre-
sentation made by the appellant against such adverse remark was also
H rejected. That apart, for other years also the assessment of the appellant's
,

R.C. TRIPATIII v. U.P.P.S.T. [G.N. RAY,J.] 143

service was· not at all satisfactory and the rating of the service of the A
appellant was only 'average' for the other years. A Selection Committee
took into consideration the cases of temporary Junior Engineers for con-
firmation and out of 43 Junior Engineers, 33 were made permanent on
assessment of their works but appellant's service was not considered satis-
factory for makinr him permanent Accordingly, his service was terminated B
with immediate e feet by giving one month's salary in lieu of one month's
notice. It was con..ended by the U,P. Jal Nigam that the appellant's service
• was not terminated by way of punishment as sought to be contended by
him but the temporary service of the appellant was terminated according
to the service rules by giving one month's salary in lieu of one month's
notice on proper assessment of his service records. C
The U.P. Public Service Tribunal rejected the claim petition of the
appellant by holding inter alia tltat the appellant was holding a temporary
service and the confirmation given to the appellant through mistake was
rectified. It was held by the Tnbunal that the order of tennination was .not D
pao;sed mala fide or by way of punishment but the same was passed after
assessing the appellant's service records which was found to be not satis-
factory. The Tribunal also held that since the impugned order of termina-
tion was passed by giving one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice
as per the conditions of service and without any stigma attached to the
order of termination, the same was quite valid and was not liable to be set E
aside.

As aforesaid, the appellant challenged the said order of U.P. Public
Services Tribunal rejecting his claim petition by moving a Writ Petition
before the Allahabad High Court but the High Court upheld the order of F
Tnl>unal and dismissed the Writ Petition holding inter alia that such order
was passed on assessment of the. service records of the appellant without
attaching any stigma against the appellant and in conformity wit!: the
service rules by giving one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice.

At the hearing of this appea~ Mr. Mukhoty, learned senior counsel G
appearing for the appellant has very strongly contended that although nci
stigma was attached in the impugned order of termination of the service
of the appellant, in effect the order was a punitive order intended to get
rid of the appellant because of his union activities thereby incurring the
displeasure of the higher authorities. Mr. Mukhoty has contended that the H
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 2 S.C.R.

A appellant had rendered service for a total period of 16 years in LSGED
and UP. Jal Nigam and the boggy of unsatisfactory service was far from
truth but a device to get rid of the appellant. Mr. Mukhoty in this connec·
lion has referred to a decision of this Court in The Manager Government
Branch Press and another v. D.B. Bellitippa, [1979] 1 SCC 477. In the said
decision, this Court has held that the protection of Articles 14 and 16 (l)
B is available to a temporary government servant if he has been arbitrarily
discriminated against and singled out for harsh treatment. The employer
has discretion under the conditions of service, but such discretion has to ~

be exercised in accordance with reason: and fair play and not capriciously. r
Arbitrary invocation or enforcement of a service condition terminating the
c service of a temporary employee may itself constitute denial of equal
opportunity and offend the equality clause in Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the
Constitution. Relying on the said decision, Mr. Mukhoty has contended
that for the last 16 years the appellant was allowed to continue in service.
No objection was raised that bis servi<:e was unsatisfactory and he could
not be retained in service or be confirmed. It is only when the appellant
D
incurred displeasure by demanding ce1rtain concessions and raising voice
of protest as the President of the Unfon, an excuse of unsuitable service r
was sought to be found out by relying on stale service record for the year
1965-66 and an adverse entry made in the year 1978-79. Mr. Mukhoty has r
contended that other temporary Junior Engineers who were similarly cir-
E cumstanced with the appellant had been made permanent but he was
singled out for being terminated from service without any just and fair
reason. He has also contended-that the very fact that such termination was
sought to be effected after Jong service of 16 years, clearly demostrates the
unreasonableness and the ma/a fide attitude on the part of the respondents
F and on that score alone, the order of termination is to be set aside by >
holding that the said order was not just and fair but was actuated by ma/a
fide and unreasonableness. Mr. Mukhoty has also relied on another
decision of this Court in Brij Mohan Sinirh Chopra v. State of Punjab, [1987]
2 SCC 188. It has been held by this Court in the said decision that for
retiring a govel'llll1ent servant compulsorily, stale adverse entries of more
G than ten years back should not be t~ken into consideration. Only, the
current service records could be taken into consideration for deciding a
case of compulsory retirement provided adverse enties made in the service
records had been communicated to the concerned government employees
and reasonable opportunities to hear 111~nst such entries had been given
H
R.C. TRIPATIII v. U.P.P.S.T.[G.N.RAY,J.) 145

to such employee. Mr. Mukhoty has submitted that the adverse entry of A
the year 1965-66 should not have been considered for the purpose of
terminating the service of the appellant. He has also contended that even
if it is assumed that adverse entries of 1978-79 had been taken into
consideration after communicating the same to the appellant and rejecting
his representation, the fact remains that barring the said adverse entry of B
1978-79, the appellant did not suffer any adverse entry in the service record
in the recent pa~t and thf rating. of the appellant as 'average' does not
constitute any adverse remark. He has contended that if with such rating
as average the appellant was allowed to continue in service for a number
of years, there was no reason, far less a fair reason, to hold the appellant
unsuitable for retention in service at a late stage. Mr. ,Mukhoty has coo- C
tended that the said order of termination at an advanced stage of the
appellant's career created a serious prejudice to the appellant thereby
practically depriving him of any chance to get a suitable job elsewhere at
the late stage of life. He has submitted that the Court should take into
consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case to come to a D
proper decision as to whether or not action of the Jal Nigam is fair and
just. He has submitted that although the service of a temporary employee
is liable to be terminated on the ground of unsuitability by givipg one
month's salary in lieu of one month's notice, the Court should no~ allow
such termination of .service if the same is passed unjustly by singling out a
poor employee as unsuitable though the facts and circumstances clearly E
indicate that his service was not found unsuitable at any point of time. He
has, therefore, submitted that the U.P. Public Services Tribunal and the
Allahabad High Court failed to appreciate the lack of fairness in passing
the said order of termination and had gone wrong in not setting aside the
said unjust and improper order of termination. He has submitted that this F
CoUrt should allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of
termination of service and direct the respondent to confll10 the appellant
from the date from which the other Junior Engineers were confirmed in
service and to give all consequential benefits of such ser\lice of the appel-
lant.
G
Such contention of Mr. Mukhoty ·was seriously disputed by the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent. It has been contended by
the learned c0unsel for the respondent that the U.P. Public Services
Tribunal has come to a categorical finding that the order of termination of
the appellant's service was not made as a punitive measure as sought to be H

' ..,._, ;: .•. ;. ~ .. ····, '·. .. :,
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) 2 S.C.R.

A contended but such order was passed after assessing the service records of
the appellant. It has been contended that a proper committee looked into f'
the service records of various employees including the appellant and
although 33 Junior Engineers were made permanent, the appellant's ser-
vice was found to be unsatisfactory and it was decided not to retain the
B appellant because he was found unsatisfactory. It has been contended by
the learned counsel that the appellant was given chance to improve his
service over a long span of time, but. unfortunately, he suffered adverse
entries on two occasions and on other occasions also the assessment 'of his
service record was not at all satisfactory and he was given a poor rating as
'average'. As the appellant failed to improve his capabilities, on assessment
C of the service records he was found u1isuitable to be retained in the service
and the temporary service was terminated according to the service rules by
giving one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice without attaching
any stigma in the order of termination. The learned counsel for the
respondent has relied on a decision of this Court in Triveni Sllankar Saxena
v. State of U.P. and other.s, (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 524. It was held in the said
decision that when an employee was, not shown in substantive capacity on
permanent basis, the employee could not claim his lieu in the post of
Lekhpal. It was also held that if t1:rmination of service simplicitor of a
temporary employee was effected as per rule on account of his unsuitability
on the basis of service records including remarks in the character roll, such
E termination could not be held as punitive and the termination of such
service must be held as legal 00.d valid. The learned Counsel has submitted
that in the said case even after 18 years of temporary service, the employ-
ment of the temporary government servant was terminated on assessment
of the service records by finding hiin as unsuitable to be retained in service
F and this Court did not set aside such order of termination on the score that
such order has been passed afteir allowing the ~nceroed employee to
remain in temporary service for 18 years. The learned counsel for the
respondent has also relied on a decision of this Court in State of Uttar
Pradesll and another v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, (1991) l SCC 691. It has
been held in the said decision of this Court that termination of service of
G ad hoc or temporary government i;ervant in terms of the contract of service
and rules by passing an order of termination simplicitor on assessment of
suitability after consideration of adverse entry must be held as valid and
not punitive. The learned counsel for the respondent has, therefore, sub-
mitted that the service Tribunal and High Court were justified in holding
H

.,
R.C. TRIPATIII v. U.P.P.S.T. [G.N. RAY,J.] 147

that the impugned order of termination was validly passed on assessment A
~l
of service record of the appellant. The learned counsel has contended that
in the instant case no stale record was taken into consideration. Even if the
service record of 1965-66 is left out of consideration, the adverse entry
made in the service record of the appellant in 1978-79 cannot be held to
be stale entry for the purpose of considering the suitability of the appellant
in 1981. The learned counsel has contended that the appellant failed to get
B
any superior rating over a long span of years. Accordingly, there is ample
•' justification to hold him unsuitable and the impugned order was, therefore,
properly made. The learned counsel for the respondent has, therefore,
submitted that no interference is called for and the same should be
dismissed. c
After giving our anxious cousideration to the facts and circumstances
of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties,
it appears to us that the appellant was not made permanent in the post of
Junior Engineer. Although he was made permanent, as indicated herein- D
before, such order was passed in complete violation of the interim order
of injunction passed by the High Court in the Writ Proceedings which
" debarred the respondents from confirming any Junior Engineer. Since the
order of confirmation of the appellant was made in violation of the injunc-
tion order, the mistake committed in passing the order of confirmation was
corrected. In our view, in such circumstances, the appellant was not E
required to be given any opportunity of being heard for correcting such
mistake because there was no occasion to take one view or the other in the
matter of correction of the said mistake on the basis of the representation
to be made by the appellant. The order of confirmation was per se illegal
' and in violation of the order of injunction passed by the High Court and F
the same being invalid was got to be corrected, in any event. The finding
of the Tribunal that the impugned order of termination was passed without
any stigma and not as a punitive measure has been upheld by the High
Court and we find no justification in taking a contrary view simply because
the appellant was a President of local union at Kanpur, and according to
him, he had raised demands on behalf of the employees. There are no G
materials warranting a finding that he was picked up for incurring dis-

... pleasure of the higher authorities and the .service was sought to be ter-
minated mala fide on some pretext. It appears that although the appellant
had remained in service for 16 years but the service record of the appellant
was not at all convincing even within a spall of five years prior to the date H
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 2 S.C.R.

A of consideration of his suitability to be retained in temporary service. He
suffered an adverse entry and despite opportunity to make representation,
such entries were maintained. The assessment of other years of service in
the recent past was also not assuring and the appellant was rated as
average. if on consideration of such service records, the appropriate com-
B mittee did not find the appellant suitable to be confirmed in service and
the concerned authorities Oil consideration of poor service record of the
appellant had come to the finding that he was not suitable to be retained
in service and the impugned order was passed without any stigma and in
accordance with the service rules, the same cannot be held illegal or
invalid. We, therefore, find no justification to set aside the impugned order
C of termination of service,
It, however, appears to us that 'the appellant had in fact rendered 16
years bf service in LSGED and thereafter in U.P. Jal Nigam. Although the
service record of the appellant was not good, the concerned authorities had
allowed him to continue in service despite the poor rating and adverse
D entries. The appellant has advance:d in age and there is force in the
contention of Mr. Mukhoty that it will be very difficult for the appellant to
get suitable employment opportunity at this advanced age. Jn Trive11i
Sha11ker's case (supra), a similar circumstance was taken into consideration
by this Court and it was held that inspite of poor service record, the
E termination was not affected at the earlier point of time thereby depriving
the appellant to secure some other employment. This Court, therefore,
though upheld the termination of service, directed the State Government
to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 as ex &ratio within four months. The facts and
circumstances of this ease also similar and for the same reason, although
we have not interfered with the termination of the service of the appellant,
F we direct the U.P. Jal Nigam to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000 to the appellant
within a period of three months from today. Although appeal is dismissed,
in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost.
T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.