High Court allowed writ petition challenging termination order, holding it stigmatic and violative of natural justice due to lack of hearing, setting aside the order with liberty to take fresh action.
Impugned order dated 21.1.2021 set aside with liberty to respondents to take fresh action in accordance with law.
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. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2697 of 2021
Petitioner :- Prem Chandra Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.1.2021 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated in pursuance of an order dated 03.10.2020.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant by the Block Development Officer/Programme Officer in Vikas Khand Bahadurpur, Basti on 26.11.2007 and he has continued in services since then. It appears that a complaint was made against the petitioner's working and some enquiry was got conducted which resulted into an enquiry report dated 24.8.2020.
In pursuance of the said enquiry report, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the Chief Development Officer, Basti by passing an order dated 22.1.2021 which is prima facie stigmatic in nature.
The petitioner challenged the said order in the present writ petition.
This Court, vide order dated 23.2.2021, dismissed the writ petition in the light of the Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Rajesh Bhardwaj and others vs. Union of India and others, 2019 2 ADJ 830.
The said order was challenged in Special Appeal
(Defective) No. 250 of 2021 which was allowed vide judgement dated 14.6.2021 wherein the order impugned dated 23.1.2021 was set aside and the matter was remanded for consideration afresh.
Today when the matter is being taken up, the counsel for the petitioner argues that prima facie the impugned order dated 22.1.2021 is stigmatic in nature and has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing or even supplying a copy of the enquiry report prior to passing of the special order dated 22.1.2021. He further argues that the order is without jurisdiction as it is the District Magistrate alone who is competent to pass the order.
On perusal of the order dated 21.1.2021, it is clear that there is no mention of giving any opportunity of hearing or taking into account the stand of the petitioner prior to the passing of the said order makes it clear that the order suffers from the vice of violation of principles of natural justice and is thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 21.1.2021 is set aside with all consequential benefits to the petitioner with liberty to the respondents to take fresh action in accordance with law, if so advised.
The writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 22.7.2021
Puspendra
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the termination order passed without hearing and communication of enquiry report violates Article 14 and principles of natural justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajesh Bhardwaj and others vs. Union of India and othersReferred¶10
Rajesh Bhardwaj and others vs. Union of India and others, 2019 2 ADJ 830
State Of U.P., etc. vs. Prem Chandra GuptaFollowed¶12
Special Appeal (Defective) No. 250 of 2021
Prem Chandra Gupta
State Of U.P.
Pankaj Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
