Termination Of Employee On Allegation Of Disobedience Without Departmental Inquiry Legally Impermissible: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that terminating the services of an employee over allegations of disobedience or indiscipline without permitting him to adduce evidence in a properly constituted inquiry is legally impermissible, making such termination unsustainable. The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed that the respondents had terminated the petitioner's services by...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that terminating the services of an employee over allegations of disobedience or indiscipline without permitting him to adduce evidence in a properly constituted inquiry is legally impermissible, making such termination unsustainable.
The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed that the respondents had terminated the petitioner's services by merely issuing a show cause notice and discarding his reply as unsatisfactory without conducting any formal Departmental Inquiry.
The court reiterated settle position of law that even though an employee may be appointed as a contractual or daily employee, the principles of natural justice may strictly be followed when termination is founded on allegations of misconduct. It said,
"In the instant case, the allegations of disobedience and indiscipline were clearly the foundation of the termination. Casting such a stigma upon the petitioner without adducing evidence in a properly constituted inquiry is legally impermissible. Thus, the impugned termination orders cannot be sustained".
A writ petition was filed by a permanent worker who was downgraded to a temporary daily wager, challenging the termination order of April 15, 2021 and January 24, 2022, as well as the reinstatement order of December 3, 2021.
The petitioner's primary grievance is that his services were terminated and his category was subsequently downgraded from permanent worker to temporary daily wager without affording the opportunity of a hearing or adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The petitioner initially commenced working as a daily wager on March 1, 1995, but his services were terminated on March 28, 2000. He approached the Labour Court, which reinstated his services in 2002. After working for 10 years, the petitioner approached the court seeking permanent status, which was confirmed by the High Court in 2012 and his category was rectified to skilled worker per an order of 2018.
The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice in 2021 alleging that he failed to follow the instructions of the SDM and Incident Commander, Ratlam. The petitioner submitted his reply stating that he had not received any instructions or orders regarding the specified duty.
Without conducting any inquiry or considering the reply, the respondent terminated the petitioner's service per order of April 15, 2021. Subsequently, on December 3, 2021, he was reinstated but demoted to the status of a daily wager.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that he was rightly appointed to a permanent post by the intervention of the court. Further, it was conteded that terminating the petitioner's service for an alleged lapse concerning an uncommunicated order was highly illegal and against the principles of natural justice.
The counsel for the respondents argued that, based on the petitioner's indiscipline and disobedience to the orders of the higher officials, his services were terminated.
The court noted that the primary issue for consideration was "whether the termination of the petitioner was executed in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Upon a bare perusal of the record, it is unequivocally clear that there was no compliance of natural justice prior to the issuance of the impugned termination orders".
Finding the termination order to be arbitrary and the court set it aside and allowed the petition.
The bench directed, "Furthermore, since the initial termination is found to be bad in law, the subsequent order dated 03.12.2021, which arbitrarily changed the petitioner's legally established category from a permanent worker to a daily wager, also lacks legal sanctity and is liable to be set-aside. Resultantly, the present Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned termination orders dated 15.04.2021 and 24.01.2022, as well as the reinstatement order dated 03.12.2021 issued by respondent No. 2, are hereby quashed and set-aside".
Case Title: Akhilesh Nimawat v State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No.9914/2022
For Petitioner: Advocate Mradul Bhatnagar
For State: Government Advocate Swati Ukhale
For Commissioner of Nagar Palika Nigam (respondent no 2): Advocate Tarun Kushwah