VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

522 DECISION - 239
prevailing unrest and agitation among a section of the O.N.G.C.
employees. Apparently, this assessment of Joshi’s role in the trade
union activities was the basis for his termination from service ordered
on 29-12-67, although the termination was shown on record as
termination simpliciter.
The Supreme Court made the following observations/orders:
(a) Even if the employees of the O.N.G.C., which is an instrumentality
of the State, cannot be said to be the members of a civil service of
the Union or an All India Service or hold any civil post under the
Union, for the purpose of Arts. 310 and 311 of Constitution and,
therefore, not entitled to the protection of Art. 311, they would
nonetheless be entitled to the protection of the fundamental rights
enshrined in Arts. 14 and 16. In other words, they would be entitled
to the protection of equality in the matter of employment in public
service and they cannot be dealt with in an arbitrary manner. (b)
There is nothing to show in the record that on completion of the
probation period, the appellant was appointed as a temporary Store
Keeper. The words used are: ‘ He is continued in service on regular
basis until further orders.” The expression ‘until further orders’
suggest an indefinite period. It is difficult to construe it as clothing
him with the status of a temporary employee. (c) If the appellant was
appointed on regular basis, the services cannot be terminated by
one month’s notice. If it is by way of punishment, it will be violative of
the principles of natural justice in that no opportunity was given to
the appellant to clear himself of the alleged misconduct. If it is
discharge simpliciter, it would be violative of Art. 16 because, a number
of Store Keepers junior to the appellant are shown to have been
retained in service and the appellant cannot be picked arbitrarily. He
had the protection of Art. 16 which confers on him the fundamental
right of equality and equal treatment in the matter of public
employment. (d) The charge of unsuitability was either cooked up or
conjured up for a collateral purpose of doing away with the services
of an active trade union worker. The Supreme Court found the
termination order as illegal, void and unjustified.