The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dismissal of an employee without affording a fair procedure and in violation of natural justice principles is arbitrary and unsustainable.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

( 1 ) ISSUE Rule. Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, counsel for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the MCD) waives notice of rule. The petition was heard for final disposal.

( 2 ) THE writ petitioner joined services of the delhi Development Authoriy (DDA) in 1976. He was selected and appointed to the post of ldc, in March, 1981; later, he was promoted as UDC in 1986. By an order dated 29-7- 1991, the petitioner, along with nine others were transferred to MCD. The Slum and JJ wing of the DDA was transferred, by general order dated 1-9-1992, to the MCD. It is averred that the petitioner qualified in a departmental examination for promotion to the post of Assistant, in DDA, on 21-4-2003; he later requested for his transfer to that organization. Apparently, the MCD accorded approval for the petitioner s regularization to the post of Assistant in 2003.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was arrested on 11-3-2005, for having committed offences under Sections 6 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988. By the impugned order dated 14- 3-2005, he was dismissed from the services by the MCD. The impugned order has been questioned as arbitrary, and issued in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice, since it was not preceded by any inquiry. It is also averred that the MCD did not have any authority to issue the impugned order, since the petitioner was merely on deputation; his employer was DDA.

( 4 ) THE MCD, in its response, has alleged that the impugned order is neither illegal or arbitrary; it is averred that the petitioner was caught red handed accepting a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from some one for providing possession of a DDA flat. The MCD avers that even if it were to be assumed that the petitioner was on deputation, as the borrowing organization, it did not lack in competence to issue the dismissal order; the order was merely subject to ratification by the DDA.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the MCD could not have dispensed with the requirement of having to hold an inquiry. It merely proceeded on the assumption that the initiation of criminal proceeding, entitled it to dismiss the petitioner, on the premise that he had been caught red handed, and that it was under no obligation to grant opportunity and follow a modicum of fair procedure before issuing a penal order. The Petitioner has disputed the allegations of the MCD.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for MCD, on the other hand submitted that the facts of this case did not warrant exercise of equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since he had been caught red-handed, accepting a bribe. under the circumstances, the MCD was of the opinion that large public interest demanded issuance of the dismissal, to convey to the people at large that corrupt officers and employees would have no place in MCD. in was also submitted that ratification for the action was being sought from DDA.

( 7 ) EVERY action of an executive authority which visits adverse or evil consequences upon any person should be preceded by rules of natural justice or at least fair procedure. This applies equally where an employee s services are sought to be terminated. Public employers usually prescribe procedural safeguards, for holding an enquiry enabling employees to present their case in a fair manner. An exception is carved out to cater to exceptional cases i. e where the nature of charge is either so sensitive or public interest warrants that an enquiry would not be either practicable or would lead to unfair results. One such instance has been dealt with by Constitution Bench Judgment in union of India Vs. Tulsi Ram Patel 1985 (3) SCC 398 In that decision, the Court was interpreted of Article 311 of the Constitution of India which empowers the competent authority to dispense with an enquiry if it was deemed to be not reasonably practicable to hold it. It was held as follows:"the condition precedent for the application of Clause (b) is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document