Delinquent must be given opportunity of hearing before passing of a major punishment order
Sanjay Dadhich v. The State of Rajasthan & 2 others
Writ Petition No.: 6869/2007
Allowed by the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court on 17.10.2023 & Termination order was quashed
By the Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand J
This is a case where the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Respondent No.3 Dy Director Secondary Education Kota on 11.07.2007. The petitioner by means of this Writ petitioner sought quashing of the dismissal order and action against the Respondent No.3.
Submission of the petitioner
The petitioner participated for selection for appointment on the post of Physical Education Teacher Grade-II in the year 1998.
The degree possessed by the petitioner was not considered as a valid degree for appointment.
The petitioner challenged the action of the respondents by filing a Writ in 2004 and the same was allowed by this Court on 18.11.2005 with direction to the respondents to re-assess the merit of the petitioner and take into account the bonus marks of the State level certificate and in case the petitioner is found in merit then consider his case for appointment on the said post.
The sports certificate furnished by the petitioner were verified by the respondents and appointment was granted to him vide order dated 31.10.2006.
However, on 14.02.2007, the services of the petitioner were dismissed on the ground that the sports certificate furnished by the petitioner were found to be forged and fabricated.
Petitioner filed miscellaneous application in the Writ wherein it was observed by this Court that the question of conducting separate enquiry with regard to sports certificates of the petitioner cannot be decided in the miscellaneous application. It was left open for the petitioner to challenge the same separately before this Court.
Subsequently the dismissal order dated 14.02.2007 was withdrawn by the respondents vide order dated 18.05.2007 subject to conducting a separate inquiry against the petitioner.
In the meantime, an FIR No. 27/2007 was registered against the petitioner with Police Station Kaithoon Pol District Kota for the offence’s U/s 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC but without issuing any notice and without holding any inquiry.
The respondents dismissed the service of the petitioner on 11.07.2007 on the basis of letters issued by the authority way back in the year 2006.
However, in the criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted from all the charges by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota vide judgment dated 26.08.2021.
Submission of the Respondent
On the basis of fake and fabricated documents, the petitioner has got appointment and when this fact was verified by the competent authority it was found that the petitioner was not in possession of the genuine sports certificate.
During the course of inquiry, a written statement was submitted by the petitioner on 08.01.2007 admitting that he has never participated in the State level sports competition.
The principles of natural justice were duly followed and accordingly the order 11.07.2007 was passed dismissing the services of the petitioner.
Issue before the Court
whether a departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and whether the delinquent had been given reasonable opportunity or not?
Observation of the Court
Reasonable Opportunity – When orders is made against a government servant it becomes duty of the authority to hear judicially, in an objective manner, impartially and after giving reasonable opportunity to the person concerned to place his case before it.
In this case no notice or charge sheet was served upon the petitioner. No documents were supplied to the petitioner to seek his explanation that the sports certificates furnished by him were fake and fabricated. No opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to file his reply to the allegations levelled against him before passing order dated 11.07.2007.
The order was stigmatic action taken to terminate petitioner’s service. Such action could not have been taken against the petitioner without giving him a full-fledged opportunity of hearing to defend and after holding regular departmental enquiry.
The employer is not allowed to hire and fire, even if allegations are there against the employee with regard to any misconduct. The services cannot be given a go-bye at one stroke of pen on the ground of misconduct by casting stigma, without holding regular enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Article 311 aims at providing security of tenure to the Government servants and guarantees constitutional protection to persons employed in civil capacities under Union and States against arbitrary dismissal, removal and reduction in rank.
Requirement of Article 311(2) (i) The civil servant must be informed of the charges against him, and (ii) He must be offered a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.
it is quite vivid that the petitioner was a permanent government employee and he has constitutional safeguard and protection under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, as such it was absolutely imperative on the part of the respondents to give him an opportunity to defend his proposed dismissal from service. But without doing so, the respondents have terminated the services of the petitioner without holding any enquiry against him.
Order
The order dated 11.07.2007 is quashed and set aside with directions to reinstate back the petitioner in service.
The respondents are granted liberty to hold fresh enquiry against the petitioner, in accordance with law. Such enquiry shall, however, be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.