Hartwell Prescott Singh vs The Uttar Pradesh Government and Others

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 100 of 1957

Decision Date: 19 September 1957

Coram: Syed Jaffer Imam, A.K. Sarkar

In the matter of Hartwell Prescott Singh versus the Uttar Pradesh Government and others, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on the nineteenth day of September, 1957. The opinion was authored by Justice Syed Jaffer Imam, who sat on a bench that also included Judges A.K. Sarkar, Bose, Vivian Das, Sudhi Ranjan (Chief Justice), Aiyyar, and T.L. Venkatarama Sarkar. The case was reported in the 1957 volume of the All India Reporter at page 886 and subsequently in the 1958 Supreme Court Reports at page 509. The dispute arose from the appellant’s service in the Subordinate Agriculture Service of Uttar Pradesh, where he had been appointed repeatedly in a temporary capacity and was listed on the gradation roll as a probationer. With the approval of the Public Service Commission of the United Provinces, he was authorized to officiate in Class 11 of the same service as a Divisional Superintendent of Agriculture. He performed the duties of this officiating post for approximately ten years before being reverted to his original temporary appointment, an action he contested. Following his protest, the government terminated his services by issuing one month’s notice pursuant to rule 25, clause (4) of the Subordinate Agriculture Service Rules. The appellant argued that Article 311 of the Constitution applied to his temporary post because it was a civil post under the government, that the termination constituted dismissal or removal since it implied inefficiency and unsatisfactory performance, and that the order of reversion amounted to a reduction in rank, effectively a penalty. The Court held that a reversion from a temporary post does not automatically constitute a reduction in rank; such a conclusion requires that the post in question be a substantive rank and that the reversion be imposed as a disciplinary penalty. The Court further clarified that termination of service does not amount to dismissal or removal within the meaning of Article 311 when it complies with the stipulated conditions of service. It observed that, in principle, there is no clear distinction between terminating a service under a contractual term and terminating it under the terms of conditions of service, and it referred to the authorities Satish Chandra Anand v. Union of India, [1953] S.C.R. 688, and Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1955] S.C.R. 26. The judgment was rendered under civil appellate jurisdiction in Civil Appeal No. 100 of 1957, which was filed by special leave against the Allahabad High Court’s order dated 21 October 1955 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 120 of 1954. The appellants were represented by counsel, while the respondent was also represented by counsel, and the Court proceeded to decide the matters raised therein.

Lal appeared for the respondent. The judgment dated 19 September 1957 was delivered by Justice Imam. The matter before the Court was an appeal by special leave challenging the order of the Allahabad High Court which had dismissed the appellant’s petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

According to the affidavits submitted in the High Court by the Personal Assistant to the Director of Agriculture of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and by the appellant, the appellant had been appointed repeatedly on a temporary basis to the Subordinate Agricultural Service of the Uttar Pradesh Government by the Director of Agriculture. The affidavits set out the periods of his service in detail. He served in Group II of the Subordinate Agricultural Service during four distinct intervals: from 16 November 1936 to 18 March 1937; from 1 April 1937 to 29 June 1937; from 9 August 1937 to 31 December 1937; and from 6 January 1938 to 22 February 1943. Subsequently, he served in Group I of the Subordinate Agricultural Service from 23 February 1943 to 24 April 1944.

While still employed in the Subordinate Agricultural Service, the appellant received an appointment to act as Divisional Superintendent of Agriculture in the United Provinces Agricultural Service, Class II, with effect from 25 April 1944. This appointment was made with the approval of the Public Service Commission of the United Provinces. He continued in this Class II position on a temporary basis for approximately ten years. On 3 May 1954, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued an order reverting him to his earlier post in the Subordinate Agricultural Service. The appellant protested the reversion, handed over charge on 16 May 1954, and then proceeded on leave which lasted until 2 October 1954.

During his leave, the Director of Agriculture issued a notice dated 13 September 1954 terminating the appellant’s service in the Subordinate Agricultural Service. The notice claimed authority under rule 25, clause (4) of the Subordinate Agriculture Service Rules and indicated that the appellant’s services would cease one month after the date of the termination order. The appellant challenged both the reversion order and the termination notice as invalid.

The High Court, in dismissing the appellant’s petition, concluded that the appellant had not been dismissed or removed from service and therefore Article 311 of the Constitution was inapplicable to the facts of the case. The High Court also rejected the appellant’s request for a certificate that the matter was suitable for appeal to the Supreme Court. It was conceded on behalf of the appellant that he had never been confirmed in any permanent post, either in the Subordinate Agricultural Service or in the United Provinces Agricultural Service, Class II. The Court agreed with the High Court’s finding that the appellant failed to establish any confirmation as a member of the Subordinate Agricultural Service based on the material before it. The Court also affirmed the High Court’s view that the appellant’s claim of absorption into the permanent cadre of the United Provinces Agricultural Service was unsupported by the evidence.

The Court agreed that the High Court correctly found, based on the record, that the appellant was never a member of the Subordinate Agricultural Service. The High Court also correctly concluded that the appellant’s claim of being absorbed into the permanent cadre of the United Provinces Agricultural Service was unsupported by the evidence. Consequently, the Court proceeded on the premise that the appellant was never permanently appointed to either the United Provinces Agricultural Service or the Subordinate Agricultural Service; he was employed only on a temporary basis throughout. Counsel for the appellant argued that Article 311 of the Constitution applied even to a temporary appointment because the appellant occupied a civil post under the Government of Uttar Pradesh, despite not being a member of its civil service. The Court observed that the order terminating the appellant’s services effectively amounted to a dismissal or removal, as it imputed inefficiency and unsatisfactory performance, and that the order reverting him from the United Provinces Agricultural Service to his original position in the Subordinate Agricultural Service constituted a demotion, being a punitive reduction in rank. Because the mandatory requirements of Article 311 had not been observed, those orders would be illegal. The issue, therefore, was whether the termination and reversion orders constituted removal, dismissal, or reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311.

The Court noted that its earlier decisions in Satish Chandra Anand v. The Union of India (1) and Shyam Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (2) clearly held that termination of a government employee’s services does not automatically amount to dismissal or removal under Article 311. In the first case, termination occurred in accordance with the contractual terms, and in the second, it resulted from compulsory retirement under Article 465A of the Civil Service Regulations; neither situation was deemed a dismissal or removal within Article 311. In the present matter, the appellant was employed temporarily in the Subordinate Agricultural Service and was listed as “on probation” in the Gradation List. His service conditions were governed by the Subordinate Agriculture Service Rules, specifically Rule 25(4), which authorises the Director of Agriculture to terminate the services of a probationer by giving one month’s notice if the employee has failed to make sufficient use of opportunities or otherwise failed to satisfy required standards. The Court concluded that termination under Rule 25(4) did not equate to dismissal or removal within the meaning of Article 311, as it conformed to the applicable service conditions. Consequently, the order under challenge did not violate Article 311 and was therefore valid.

The Court observed that Rule 25(4) of the Subordinate Agriculture Service Rules authorises the Director of Agriculture to terminate the services of a probationer by giving one month’s notice where the employee has failed to make sufficient use of his opportunities or has otherwise failed to give satisfaction. The Court held that the termination of the appellant’s services under that rule did not constitute a dismissal or removal within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution, because the termination was carried out in accordance with the conditions of service that applied to the appellant. In principle, the Court could find no clear distinction between ending the services of a person on the basis of a contract that governs him and ending the services of a person in accordance with his conditions of service. Consequently, the order that was challenged did not violate Article 311, and it was therefore a valid order. The Court further explained that a reversion from a temporary post does not, by itself, amount to a reduction in rank, since a temporary post is not the employee’s substantive rank. For the purposes of the appeal, it was unnecessary to decide under what circumstances a reversion might be treated as a reduction in rank, because the appellant had not proved that the reversion order was imposed as a penalty. Accordingly, the reversion order also did not breach Article 311 and was upheld as valid. The Court consequently dismissed the appeal, ordered the appellant to pay costs, and entered a final order of dismissal of the appeal.