A termination order casting stigma on an employee necessitates compliance with procedural safeguards under Rule 15, including a departmental enquiry and adherence to principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The short question of law involved in the present writ petition is, whether the services of an employee under the Rules Relating to Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Contingency-Paid (District and Sessions Judges Establishment) Employees Rules, 1980 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1980’), can be terminated without conducting a departmental enquiry when an order of termination casts stigma on the employee?

2. The aforesaid question of law arises on the following factual backdrop: -

3. The petitioner was appointed as Watchman on 25-10-2016 in Unreserved (Handicap) category and thereafter, on 29-4-2019, a show-cause notice was issued to him and one another Watchman in respect of theft of Reverse Osmosis (RO) Filter of the Water Cooler from the ground floor of the New Court Premises of District Court, Bilaspur. The petitioner filed reply to the show-cause notice on 4-5- 2019 and again a fresh show-cause notice was issued to him on 4-5-2019 itself to which also he filed reply on 6-5-2019 and thereafter, on 26-6-2019 by the impugned order, his services were terminated with immediate effect which is sought to be challenged by way of this writ petition.

4. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3 stating inter alia that the petitioner has been terminated in accordance with the Rules of 1980 read with clause 4 of the appointment order, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed

5. Mr. Rajeev Bharat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the order impugned terminating the services of the petitioner is stigmatic in nature, he has been alleged to be guilty of committing theft in the Governmental job and therefore the procedure prescribed in Rule 15 of the Rules of 1980 ought to have been followed which has not been followed, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

6. Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3, would oppose the writ petition and support the order impugned and submit that the services of the petitioner have rightly been terminated in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules of 1980 considering his past conduct also.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection.

8. Admittedly, the petitioner was suspected to commit theft of the RO installed in the new District Court Premises of Bilaspur and his conduct was found suspicious which is covered under Rule 13(a) of the Rules of 1980, however, after giving one month notice in accordance with law, his services have been terminated and thus, he has suffered penalty of Rule 14(viii) of the Rules of 1980 as his conduct was suspicious.

9. Rule 15 of the Rules of 1980, which prescribes Procedure for imposing penalties, ought to have been complied with. It states as under: -

“15. Procedure for imposing penalties.—(1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (vi), (vii) and (viii) of rule 14 shall be passed except after—

(i) the employee is informed in writing, when possible to do so, of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegations on which it is proposed to be taken;

(ii) the employee is, as soon as possible, give an opportunity to explain his position in regard to the allegations made against him;

(iii) such explanation, if any, is taken into c