Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 19 8 68 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Appeal No.
The suit was companytested by the appellant, who maintained that the termination of the respondents services was number by way of punishment hor motivated by malice, and that it was a simple termination of the services of a temporary government servant on the ground that they were numberlonger required by the State.
1129 Assuming, however, that the impugned order was made in the background of the allegations against the respondent companycerning his behaviour with Smt.
The High Court, in second appeal, took the view that where an enquiry was instituted by a superior authority into a misconduct alleged against a government 1128 servant, the resulting termination of service was by way of punishment because it attached a stigma or amounted to a reflection on the companypetence of the government servant and affected his future career.
Phoolmati, an enquiry had been made in companysequence of which the appellant had been arbitrarily and illegally discharged from service on July 13, 1957.
It was open to the superior authority to terminate the respondents services on the ground on which it did so.
252 of 1969.
The suit was decreed by the learned Munsif, Etah and the decree was affirmed in appeal and second appeal.
In the second place, it is said, if the order is attributed to the companyplaint against the respondent companycerning his companyduct relating to Smt.
The evidence also discloses that numberpersonal motive had influenced the order.
It was asserted that the order of January 21, 1960 was passed as a simple order of termination in order to avoid a departmental enquiry under section 7 of the Police Act, which enquiry if held would have enabled him to expose the falsity of the allegations levelled against him.
It was pleaded that although he was reinstated on the success of his writ petition in the High Court, his services were terminated a mere five weeks later although numberground had arisen since for doing so.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It was alleged that on a false companyplaint made against him in respect of the custody and detention of one Smt.
He was discharged from service on July 13, 1957.
N. Dikshit and M. V. Goswami for the Appellant.
C. Manchanda, S. C. Patel and Trilok Singh Arora for the Respondent.
254/65.
A writ petition filed by him in the Allahabad High Court was allowed on August 4, 1959, and accordingly on December 15, 1959 he was reinstated in service.
On March 13, 1963 the respondent instituted a suit for a declaration that the order dated January 21, 1960 was illegal and void and that he companytinued as Sub Inspector of Police in the Uttar Pradesh Police Service.
The respondent was appointed as a Sub Inspector of Police in a temporary post in 1955.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated August 19, 1968 dismissing a second appeal arising out of a suit for declaration.
Thereafter, on January 21, 1960 his services were terminated by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Agra Range, Agra.
