The court quashed an arbitrary termination order passed without an inquiry or specific charges. relying on Article 311(2). The petition was restored after a long delay and dismissed in default.
The order dated 17.3.1990 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19138 of 1990
Petitioner :- Azmat Ali Respondent :- S.D.O., & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- M. Alam,Amit Kumar Singh,Rahul Srivastava,Raj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner was Lekhpal in the revenue department and posted at Khalilabad Tehsil, District Basti. He was placed under suspension on 6.2.1990 on the ground that petitioner has failed to carry out the directions of the higher authorities and has been negligent in performing his work.
By a subsequent order passed on 17th March, 1990, petitioner's service has been terminated on the ground that petitioner has not accepted the suspension order and even on a previous occasion, he was placed under suspension but by taking a lenient view, he was forgiven, which is taken as a liberty to act contrary to the directions of the authorities. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition. The writ petition was admitted on 31.7.1990 and an interim order was granted. It appears that writ petition was listed on 15.4.2004 and was dismissed in default. Petitioner alleges that notwithstanding the dismissal of his petition, he continued to work and has also attained the age of superannuation. It is stated that when the question arose for grant of retiral benefits to the petitioner, only then it transpired that his earlier petition has been dismissed. The restoration application filed in the matter, accordingly, has been allowed on 5.10.2017.
No counter affidavit has been filed in the writ petition so far.
From the materials brought on record, it transpires that petitioner has been placed under suspension on 6.2.1990. In the order of suspension, there is no definite charge levelled against the petitioner and the charges levelled against petitioner are absolutely vague and unsubstantiated. No chargesheet has otherwise been served upon the petitioner. No enquiry has been conducted. Straightaway an order of dismissal has been passed on the ground that petitioner has not cooperated in the enquiry.
From the records available, this Court finds that the order of termination passed against the petitioner is wholly arbitrary, inasmuch as neither any specific allegation was made against
the petitioner nor the charges have been substantiated by issuing a chargesheet upon the petitioner. No enquiry has otherwise been conducted. The order of termination passed against the petitioner on the basis of alleged misconduct, without conducting any enquiry would clearly be hit by the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India apart from being in violation of the applicable service rules. The principles of natural justice have also been violated.
Writ petition, consequently, succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 17.3.1990 stands quashed.
Order Date :- 9.7.2018 Anil
3 issues framed by the court
Whether termination of service without affording an opportunity of being heard is justified.
Whether an order of termination hit by Article 311(2) of the Constitution should be quashed.
Whether the application for restoration of the writ petition should be allowed despite dismissal in default.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S.D.O.
Others
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
