The High Court held that suspension pending enquiry is not a penalty and does not violate natural justice. The court dismissed the writ petitions but directed respondents to complete the enquiry within two months.
Writ petitions dismissed; direction to complete enquiry within two months.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION Nos. 33404, 33407, 33411 and 33416 of 2011
COMMON ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
Since the cause of action in all these writ petitions arises out of the same proceedings, the writ petitions are taken up together for disposal by this common order.
The brief facts of the writ petitions are:-
The petitioners are appointed as Fixed Tenure Employees (FTE) as Engineering Consultant by Society for Rural Development Service (SRDS) on contract basis for a period of one year from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 . The petitioners are rendering service to the respondents as per the contract under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS), for the proposals of works by Mandal Parishad Development Office (MPDO), Kothaguda Mandal. It is alleged that the petitioners have committed irregularities while performing their duties. By Proceedings No.TSC/WGL/00086 dated 25.10.2011, temporary suspension of contract order was issued and on the same day, by proceedings No.SCN/WGL/00086 dated 25.10.2011, show cause notice to the petitioners was issued, contemplating disciplinary action against the petitioners. The petitioners submitted explanation to the
show cause notice, on 04.11.2011, and the same is pending before the respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the order of temporary suspension of the contract work, the petitioners filed these writ petitions.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have issued the show cause notice and called for written explanation within seven days, and on the same date of the show cause, the respondents have also issued suspension notice temporarily suspending the contract employment of the petitioners. Though the petitioners have submitted written explanation, placing the petitioners under suspension is in violation of principles of natural justice, and hence the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside.
Learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that since the petitioners are alleged to have indulged in irregularities in the course of their contract employment, the impugned proceedings have been issued temporarily suspending their contract, and the show cause notice have been issued calling for their written explanation, pending enquiry.
Admittedly, the petitioners are working in contract employment under the respondents and on the allegations that they have indulged in irregularities during the course of their contract employment, a show cause notice has been issued calling for written explanation and also, a notice has been issued temporarily suspending
their contract work, pending enquiry. The petitioners have submitted their written explanation to the show cause notice. However, suspension from work, pending enquiry into the allegations of irregularities in work, is not a penalty and the same cannot be said to be violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the respondents have committed no irregularity by initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners to enquire into the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioners. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter at this stage. However, the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above direction, the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
19th December, 2011
KSM
3 issues framed by the court
Whether temporary suspension of contract employment pending enquiry violates principles of natural justice.
Whether the High Court should interfere with initiation of disciplinary proceedings against contract employees alleging irregularities.
Whether the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry within a specified time period.
Fixed Tenure Employees (Engineering Consultants), Society for Rural Development Service
Respondents
G. CHANDRAIAH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
