Authority for employee dismissal lies exclusively with the employer board, not the government; dismissal without jurisdiction is invalid.

JUDGMENT :

(PER AARTI SATHE, J.)

1 This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the decision of Respondent No. 2 dated 31^st January 2012, thereby dismissing the Petitioner from the post of Welfare Commissioner of the Respondent No. 3-Board. The Petitioner contends that the impugned order is passed without any authority in law and on the basis of a complaint made by an employee of Respondent No. 3-Board, which was admittedly a false complaint as held in the enquiry report, of the committee constituted by Respondent No. 3-Board.

2. This Petition was admitted by an order dated 28^th February 2012 passed by this Court, also granting an interim stay in terms of prayer clause (c).

Challenging the said order SLP Civil No. 16038/2013 was filed by the State before the Supreme Court. On 5^th July 2013, the Supreme Court passed the following order on the Special Leave Petition:-

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

1. Leave granted.

2. The short submission of Mr. Shankar Chillarge, the learned counsel for the appellants is that since the respondent was already dismissed from service, and which order was under challenge before the High Court, the High Court while admitting his petition could not have granted interim stay of that order of dismissal. Mr. Sudhanshu S. Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand submits that the order could have been stayed to grant an opportunity to the appellants to make his submissions.

3. We are not in a position to accept the submission of Mr. Chaudhary. The dismissal having become operative it could not have been stayed. We do not go into the merits of this case so that the first respondent will not be prejudiced in any manner in his submissions before the High Court. The High Court has admitted his petition and it will decide the matter on its own merits. It will also be open to the respondent to apply to the High Court for whatever reliefs that he wants. Chaudhary states that he has applied for voluntary retirement. If that is so, he can make his submission and High Court will consider it.

4. As of now, this interim stay, in terms of prayer clause 'C' granted by the High court, will stand set aside. The operation of the order of dismissal will remain operative.

5. The appeal is allowed in these terms.

6. Mr. Chaudhary makes a request that the concerned Bench of the High Court may take up the appeal for early hearing. The High Court will consider that request.”

3. In view of the aforesaid order the interim stay granted by this court stood vacated on 5^th July 2013. Briefly facts relevant for adjudication of the present petition are as under:-

3.1 The Petitioner joined the services of Respondent No. 3- Board in the year 1992 and was appointed as Senior Deputy Welfare Commissioner on 14^th May 1992 on the terms and conditions as given in the appointment letter of the said date. The Petitioner prior to joining the services of Respondent No. 3- Board was working as a Labour Officer with Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) for the period 15^th November 1983 to 04^th July 1992. The Petitioner applied to the post of Senior Deputy Welfare Commissioner on the basis of an advertisement published by Respondent No.3-Board, and as the Petitioner qualified for the said post on the basis of the eligibility criteria set out in the advertisement, he was appointed for the said post on 14^th May 1992.

3.2 In the year 1999, the post of Welfare Commissioner was to fall vacant as the then Welfare Commissioner was due to retire. It is the Petitioner's case that he was also entitled for promotion to the post of Welfare Comm