Summary Termination Of Services On Registration Of FIR Without Adopting Due Procedure Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh HC

The observation came from Justice Satyen Vaidya:

"Thus, the termination of the petitioner summarily without adopting due procedure and was clearly in violation of the principle of natural justice. Notwithstanding the illegality found in the termination of the petitioner, this Court is not oblivious to the fact that serious allegations involving moral turpitude were made against the petitioner by none-else than a student of the school where the petitioner was a teacher. The petitioner was charged for offence under Section 354-A IPC. Though, he has been acquitted, but it is trite law that mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to seek service benefits. Each and every case has to be adjudged on its own merits and the authority competent to adjudge is the employer."

The Petitioner was working as a Lecturer (History) in the Department of Higher Education of State government against vacancies for Ex-servicemen. His services were terminated following registration of a FIR against him under Section 354-A IPC. The complainant was one of the Petitioner's students.

Aggrieved by the termination, the Petitioner approached the Court by way of instant petition. During the pendency of this petition, he was acquitted of all charges in the criminal case.

The Petitioner contended that his was in violation of principles of natural justice as no inquiry or other proceedings were conducted prior to the same. The petitioner contended that mere registration of FIR against petitioner was not sufficient to terminate his services and that he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing.

The Respondents sought to justify the termination on the ground that the petitioner was a contractual employee. Since a criminal case was registered against him and he remained in custody, his termination was sought to be justified in terms of Clause-7 of the contract agreement.

The Court noted that though the petitioner's appointment was made on contract basis, but from the terms of the contract, it was clear that "permanency" was attached to the employment. "As per Clause 6 of the terms and conditions of the office order dated 24.07.2012, the contract was liable to be renewed on year to year basis...He was also allowed the minimum of pay scale of pay band applicable to the Lecturer (School Cadre) in the Department of Higher Education, Government of Himachal Pradesh."

It thus held that the petitioner definitely has a right of consideration vis-à-vis his plea for revocation of his termination, re-engagement and ensuing consequential benefits in view of the exposition made.

Accordingly, the Respondent was directed to re-consider the petitioner's case.

"Though, he has been acquitted, but it is trite law that mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to seek service benefits. Each and every case has to be adjudged on its own merits and the authority competent to adjudge is the employer. The relevant considerations are whether the petitioner has been acquitted merely on technical grounds or his acquittal is honourable. The purpose is to assess the desirability and suitability of the employee in the backdrop of allegations levelled against him and the acquittal recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction."

Case Title : SH. RAJ KUMAR v STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (HP) 21

Click Here To Read/Download Order