SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 683

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Swati Priyadarshini – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9758 of 2024 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11685 of 2021]
Decided On : 22-08-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Mr. Rahul Gupta, Adv. Ms. Alice Raj, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nachiketa Joshi Sr. Adv., A.A.G. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Adv. Mr. Mirza Kayesh Begg, Adv. Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv. Mr. Argha Roy, Adv. Ms. Ojaswini Gupta, Adv. Ms. Ruby, Adv. Mr. Zartab Anwar, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Termination – Mere non-mention of background situation or show-cause notices in order of termination cannot, by itself, be determinative of nature of order – Form of an order is not its final determinant and Court can find out real reason and true character behind terminating/removing an employee.

Headnote:

Service Law – Termination – From post of Assistant Project Coordinator (APC) as a contractual appointee under Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan – Appellant topped revised Merit List, leading to her appointment as APC – It is no justification for appellant to contend that she was late, but worked late/overtime such that work did not suffer – However, with regard to hostel, charge was given to her for only 5/6 days – As such, it cannot be said that within such a short period, appellant, without fully understanding attendant issues, could have straightaway given any opinion/report on hostel – If it is a case of termination simpliciter and non-stigmatic, then one month’s notice was required to be issued to appellant, which was not done in instant matter – Mere non-mention of background situation or show-cause notices in order of termination cannot, by itself, be determinative of nature of order – Form of an order is not its final determinant and Court can find out real reason and true character behind terminating/removing an employee – Impugned Judgment quashed and set aside and Judgment of Single Judge stands revived, with a modification to the extent that appellant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including notional continuation in service at par with other similarly situated employees, but with back wages restricted to 50% – In view of long passage of time, liberty denied to respondents to proceed afresh against appellant as was granted by Single Judge – However, this will not preclude respondents from taking action against appellant in accordance with law in futuro apropos her official duties on post in question, if situation so arises. (Paras 30, 32, 33 and 36)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal has been filed against Final Judgment and Order dated 03.02.2020 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal whereby it overruled Judgment dated 20.06.2017 passed by Single Judge in Writ Petition.

Findings of Court:

Respondents did not comply with Clause 4 – either the first part or the second part thereof. Order dated 30.03.2013 does visit appellant with evil consequences and would create hurdles for her re further employment.

Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. We are inclined to grant leave; hence, granted.

3. The present appeal has been filed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 03.02.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Writ Appeal No.956/2017, whereby it overruled the Judgment dated 20.06.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.8404/2013.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

4. On 15.10.2012, the sole appellant was appointed by the Respondent No.4 to the post of Assistant Project Coordinator (hereinafter referred to as “APC”) under the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan (hereinafter referred to as “SSA”) on contract basis, initially for one academic session (1 year), renewable in subsequent years for two years each “subject to evaluation of work in the first year.”

5. It was contended by the appellant that she received some information about alleged misconduct and immoral activity going on in the CWSN (abbreviation for “Children with Special Needs”) Girls’ Hostel, Sehore (hereinafter referred to as the “hostel”) run by one Bright Star Social Society, a non-governmental organization (hereinafter referred to as “Bright Star”). The State Level Committee raided the hostel on a complaint made by the appellant. The State Level Committee found the allegations, made by the appellant to be true eventually leading to termination of the Memorandum of Understanding with Bright Star to run the hostel with effect from 08.01.2013.

6. On 09.01.2013, the appellant was made in-charge of the hostel. An order was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Magistrate, Sehore on 10.01.2013 to the District Coordinator, State Education Centre, Sehore to lodge a First Information Report against the warden under whose supervision the alleged crime(s) was/were being committed in the hostel.

7. By order dated 14.01.2013, charge of the hostel was withdrawn from the appellant after 5/6 days of assigning the charge. The appellant received a Show-Cause Notice (hereinafter abbreviated to “SCN”) issued by the Respondent No.5 which reads as under, 1[For convenience, English translation is used. The original SCN was issued in Hindi.] :

    “The attendance register was perused by the District Project Coordinator District Education Centre, Sihore under the above subject. Absent was marked on 4th and 5th January, 2013 by me in the attendance register. (sic)

    Signatures were made by you in the said dates in the attendance register and your coming in the office at 12:00 hours on 14.02.13 is a negligence on your part towards duties and is violation of orders of officer.”

To the above, the appellant replied on 16.02.2013, stating that signatures have not been made by her on the attendance register. She stated that due to the arrival of her daughter from Bhopal on 14.02.2013, she was late on the said date. The appellant contended that whenever she comes late to work, she stays late in the office till evening 7-8 PM and completes all the work.

8. On 15.03.2013, another SCN was issued by the Respondent No.4 to the appellant with the following charges:

    “i. Marking of disabled boys/girls and verification of the specified list prepared by Social Justice was to be done by you for the execution of several activities through Arushi Institution but marking and verification was not done by you.

    ii. The proceedings of appointing volunteers and MRC are prevalent in the Arushi Institution. You are also nominated therein as representative of District Education Centre but due to your in-cooperative, obstruction and negligent attitude, the appointment on the said posts could not be made and due to this reason, the other activities including education is adversely being affected.

    iii. No report was submitted when the monitoring of CWSN hostel was done and what improvements were made.

    iv. Entry of unauthorized persons in the hostel is strictly proh


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top