2020 Supreme(Del) 773
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Savita Gupta - Appellant
Versus
India Post Payments Bank Limited (ippb Board) - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3113 of 2020; Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 10813 of 2020
Decided On : 04-08-2020
Sukumar Pattjoshi, Advocate, Sunder Khatri, Advocate, Rajesh Gautam, Advocate, Anant Gautam, Advocate
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Employment - Termination of service - Petitioner appointed as GM (Finance) terminated for alleged ineligibility due to lack of experience - Court found termination to be motivated by anonymous complaints and not merely procedural - Requirement of a formal inquiry under service rules emphasized - Clause in appointment letter permitting termination during probation deemed inapplicable due to confirmation status - Court set aside termination and directed reinstatement without back wages. (Paras 72, 73)
(B) Employment law - Confirmation and probation - The principle that an employee cannot claim automatic confirmation after probation ends unless explicitly stated in contract or rules upheld - Full opportunity for defense in disciplinary actions required - Termination not to be treated as simplicitor if based on underlying allegations of misconduct. (Paras 36-37)
(C) Natural Justice - Termination order referencing allegations without allowing employee a chance to refute them violates principles of natural justice and renders the order illegal. (Paras 42-43)
(D) Judicial precedent - Reliance on established legal principles regarding the nature of termination orders and the distinction between punitive and simplicitor terminations noted.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. - By this Writ Petition Petitioner impugns the letter dated 27.03.2020 issued by Respondent, whereby her services have been terminated from the post of General Manager (Finance), on the ground of not meeting the mandatory eligibility criteria of having minimum three years experience in Heading the Finance and Accounting Department of a Bank or one level below the Head of Finance and Accounting Department in a Bank.
2. The facts as set out by the Petitioner are that she is a qualified Chartered Accountant and worked with IDBI Bank for about 26 years, since 21.05.1990. Respondent, which is a wholly owned Government of India Undertaking under the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication, invited applications for various posts in scale VII, in 2016, which included the post of Chief Financial Officer/General Manager (Finance). In response thereto, Petitioner on 14.10.2016 made an online application. The interview was held on 10.11.2016 during which she provided all the documents sought by the Respondent viz., documents relating to Educational Qualifications, detailed Resume, Experience and No Objection Certificates from the erstwhile employer/ IDBI and the latest salary slip. On successful completion of the interview, an Offer Letter dated 16.12.2016 was received by the Petitioner. Petitioner vide letter dated 19.12.2016 sought clarification regarding emoluments etc., payable to her on assuming office to the post of Chief Financial Officer (CFO)/ General Manager (Finance). On receiving a response vide letter dated 26.12.2016 from the Respondent, Petitioner sent her acceptance on 30.12.2016. On 01.03.2017, Petitioner assumed office, after resigning from her previous job in IDBI Bank.
3. As per the terms in Clause 3 of the Offer Letter, period of probation was one year and thus ended in March, 2018. However, Petitioner received no communication regarding confirmation or extension of period of probation for another year. Two years being the maximum period of probation, grievance was raised by the Petitioner against her non-confirmation, but there was no response from the Respondent.
4. After 21/2 years of joining the Respondent, letter dated 13.09.2019 was sent by the Respondent seeking clarification regarding Petitioner''s Pay Scale in IDBI Bank and its equivalency with the other Public Sector Banks (hereinafter referred to as "PSBs"), as well as her work experience. Vide letter dated 19.09.2019 Petitioner clarified that she had fulfilled the eligibility criteria required by the Respondent and had been duly selected by the Selection Committee, followed by exercise of due diligence by the Respondent in scrutiny of her documents, experience and credentials and it was only thereafter that the offer letter was issued to her. No clarification was sought thereafter and Petitioner continued to work, attending to her routine duties.
5. To the utter shock of the Petitioner, during the Nationwide Lockdown on account of COVID-19, services of the Petitioner were terminated vide letter dated 27.03.2020, with immediate effect, invoking Clause 5(a) of the Offer Letter dated 16.12.2016. Termination was on the directions of the Board and on the ground that the Petitioner did not meet the mandatory eligibility criteria of minimum 3 years of experience in Heading the Finance and Accounting Department of a Bank or one level below, at the time of applying for the post with the Respondent.
6. Soon thereafter, Petitioner filed the present Petition challenging the Termination Order. On 13.05.2020, Petition was listed before the Court. After hearing the parties, Court declined to grant a stay of the Termination Order but on account of the prevailing situation because of Pandemic COVID-19, directed Respondent Bank to pay to the landlord, lease amount for the months of April, May and June, 2020 for the premises which had been taken on lease by the Petitioner, as a part of her perks. Payment was without prejudice to the rights of t