Shocking Exercise Of Judicial Power: Supreme Court Stays MP HC Judgment Entertaining 3rd Writ Petition Against Termination After 20 Yrs

Calling it a "shocking exercise of judicial power", the Supreme Court has stayed the judgments of a Single Judge and Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court by which, entertaining a third writ petition against his termination instituted after 20 years, the reinstatement with full back wages of a Municipal Council employee was directed. The bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah was hearing an SLP (at the instance of the Municipal Council) arising out of a September 1, 2020 decision of the HC division bench, by which a February 20, 2020 order of a Single Judge setting aside the 1990 termination order and reinstating the respondent with full back wages and consequential benefits was affirmed.The respondent-employee, who was a Lower Division Clerk in Nagar Panchayat, Kymore, MP, was terminated on June 4, 1990 over embezzlement charges. "The writ petition filed by the respondent in 1991 for challenging the order of termination was dismissed by the High Court in 1994 (on January 6, 1994), and as a result of the dismissal of the writ petition, the termination attained finality", records the Supreme Court order. In 2009, the petitioner filed another writ petition before the High Court contending that a 2008 audit had revealed that it was the then-accountant of the Nagar Panchayat who had misappropriated the amount in question and not the petitioner. This plea was disposed off by the High Court on November 6, 2009 with a direction to the petitioner-Municipal Council for considering the representation for reinstatement of the respondent. By order dated February 9, 2010, his representation came to be rejected by the respondent-Panchayat. Finally, in 2010, the petitioner instituted a third writ petition before the High Court challenging the 1990 order of termination and the 2010 order rejecting his representation. "In 2009, a direction was issued by the High Court for considering the representation of the respondent on the basis of which a fresh round of proceedings was initiated and ultimately by the impugned order, reinstatement has been granted with full back wages from the year 1990 and consequential benefits", records the order of the Apex Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, in intra-court appeal, had even imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner-Nagar Panchayat for attempting to deprive the respondent-employee of his "rightful claim"."This is a shocking exercise of judicial power!", remarked Justice Chandrachud.Justice Shah expressed consternation that the High Court has taken the view that since in 2009, the High Court had directed the present petitioner-Panchayat to consider the respondent employee's representation for reinstatement on the basis of a subsequent report of the Auditor giving him a clean chit, on the rejection of the representation, the employee gets a fresh cause of action to approach the Court. The High Court has expressed the opinion that since these facts were not available in 1991, the dismissal of the earlier petition in 1994 does not make the present petition invalid."And the High Court says that fresh cause of action accrues to the employee!", commented Justice Shah, concurring with Justice Chandrachud.Issuing notice on the SLP, the bench directed that "there shall be a stay of the operation of the impugned judgments and orders of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 20 February 2020 and 1 September 2020".Proceedings before the HC Single JudgeThe Single bench was hearing a 2010 writ petition challenging the order dated 04.06.1990 whereby the services of the petitioner-employee have been terminated and also the order dated 09.02.2010 whereby his representation has been rejected by the respondent-Panchayat.The bench recorded that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1982 as Lower Division Clerk on contingency basis and worked till the order dated 04.06.1990 terminating his services was passed. It was submitted by the petitioner before the Single Bench that at the relevant time the account of the Kymore Nagar Panchayat was audited. As per the report submitted by the Auditor, it was found that the petitioner did not deposit an amount of Rs.6512/- in the account of respondent-Nagar Panchayat, in pursuance to which a show cause notice was issued to himdirecting him to deposit the said amount, but even after that he did not deposit the said amount. Consequently, the impugned order dated 04.06.1990 was passed terminating his services. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition, but the said petition was dismissed without entertaining the same. Subsequently, it was found by the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, Jabalpur that actually the aforesaid amount was misappropriated by one Badri Prasad Garg, who was working as Cashier-cum-Accountant in the respondent-Nagar Panchayat and, therefore, it was directed to recover the said amount from him only. The petitioner thereafter made a representation to the authority requesting them to...

Shocking Exercise Of Judicial Power: Supreme Court Stays MP HC Judgment Entertaining 3rd Writ Petition Against Termination After 20 Yrs

Mehal Jain

Tags