IMPORTANT POINT
Termination – Class-IV employee, when in financial hardship, may represent directly to superior but that by itself cannot amount to major misconduct for which punishment of termination from service should be imposed.

JUDGMENT :

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.01.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition (C) No. 297 of 2008, whereby the High Court has dismissed the petition of the appellant being devoid of merit.

3. The facts, briefly stated, are that the appellant was appointed on permanent basis on the post of Ardly (a class IV Post) in the Bareilly Judgeship. The appellant was transferred and posted as Process Server in the Nazarat of outlying court of Baheri, District Bareilly on 24.08.2001. In compliance of the transfer order, the appellant joined the Nazarat Branch in Baheri, District Bareilly as Process Server on 31.08.2001 but he was being paid the remuneration of Ardly.

3.1 Being aggrieved, the appellant made a representation on 20.01.2003 to the District Judge to pay the salary due to the post of Process Server. The said representation was duly considered by the competent authority and a report from the Munsarim in the office of Civil Judge, Baheri, Bareilly was called for. As per the report of Munsarim dated 27.02.2003, the appellant joined the post of Process Server in the Court of Civil Judge, Baheri, Bareilly on 31.08.2001 and since then is working on the said post. Allegedly, after submission of the said report, the Central Nazir started harassing the appellant and demanded illegal amount of gratification for settling his dues.

3.2 Since the grievance of the appellant was not being redressed, he made a representation dated 05.06.2003 to the Janapad Nyaayaadeesh inter alia stating that he is deprived of the allowance that is admissible to the incumbents who are posted at an outlying court as Process Server. It is further stated that when the appellant went to meet the Central Nazir on 04.06.2003, he demanded bribe to get his work done. The District Judge, Bareilly sought an explanation from the Central Nazir, Bareilly Judgeship who in turn admitted that by mistake the salary of the appellant has been shown as against the post of Ardly, however, he denied having demanded illegal gratification from the appellant.

3.3 The District Judge placed the appellant under suspension vide order dated 21.06.2003 and initiated a departmental inquiry. The Inquiry Officer vide memorandum dated 22.08.2003 served the charge sheet on the appellant on the charges firstly, the appellant vide communication dated 05.06.2003 had used inappropriate, derogatory and objectionable language and made false allegations against the officers including the District Judge as well as against the Presiding Officer of Aonla Court and secondly, the appellant communicated letters and representations to the Registrar General of High Court and other officials of the State Government including the then Chief Minister without routing the same through proper channel. The Inquiry Officer, upon completion of enquiry, recorded in his report dated 21.04.2006 that the charges levelled against the appellant are duly established. The District Judge, Bareilly accepted the inquiry report dated 21.04.2006 and vide order dated 30.04.2007 dismissed the appellant which was challenged in appeal before the High Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2007 being devoid of any substance while affirming the order dated 30.04.2007 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of dismissal.

3.4 Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2007 passed by the Administrative Judge of the High Court of Allahabad, the appellant filed the Writ Petition (C) No. 297 of 2008 before the High Court which attained the same fate as that of the appeal. Hence, the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the first charge, in particular, is vague as no finding has been recorded by the Inquiry Officer with regard to the allegations made in the letter dated 05.06.2003 against the officials. Learned counsel would further submit that