IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Dr. Praveen Singh - Appellant
Versus
Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 4349 of 2022 and CM APPL. Nos.12997 of 2022, 6390 of 2023, 17966 of 2023 and 17967 of 2023
Decided On : 16-11-2023
Termination - Employment - Society Registration Act, 1860 - MOA Clauses 6.6, 7.1, 31 - The court discussed the termination of the petitioner's employment and the relevant clauses of the Memorandum of Association (MOA) in detail. It highlighted the legal provisions related to appointment and termination of medical officers, the role of the Governing Council, and the requirement of annual performance appraisal reports for contract extensions. The court emphasized that the termination by an incompetent authority is invalid and set aside the impugned orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Professor (Cardiology) at a hospital, sought relief against the termination of his services. The respondent terminated his employment citing serious allegations from patients, family members, and colleagues.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination by an incompetent authority was invalid and set aside the impugned orders. It emphasized the importance of following due process and the role of the competent authority in employment decisions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the termination of the petitioner's employment by an incompetent authority was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the termination by an incompetent authority is invalid and emphasized the importance of the competent authority in employment decisions.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders, and disposed of the petition.
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner vide the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/direction/order to quash the (i) Office order having no. F.No.1/22/Admn/Soc/RGSSH/2022/2514-2520 dated 09.03.2022 issued by the Respondent No. I and (ii) Office order having No. F.No. 1/22/Admn/Soc/RGSSH/20221180-184 dated 10.03.2022 issued by Respondent No.2 whereby the Respondents terminated the service of the Petitioner herein as Assistant Professor (Cardiology) of the Respondent No.2 Hospital;
(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/direction/order directing the Respondent to issue order extending the tenure of the Petitioner for further period;
(iii) Pass any other Order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the Petitioner according to the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the instant petition are as follows:
a) The petitioner was working as Assistant Professor (Cardiology) with the respondent no.2 on contractual basis from the year 2014. The respondent no. 2 is a 650 bedded autonomous institute under respondent no. 1 and registered as a society under the Society Registration Act, 1860.
b) During October 2021, one Dr. Neeraj Pandit, aged 65 years, joined the Cardiology Department of respondent no.2 hospital at the supervisory post of HOD Cardiology. It is alleged by the petitioner that the same was in violation of Office Memorandum dated 19th July 2018, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare.
c) Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent, the petitioner raised his grievances before the higher authority by way of representation dated 18th December 2021, and 24th January 2022. On 9th March 2022, the respondent no. 1 directed that the petitioner's services were to be terminated on immediate basis.
d) Consequently, on 10th March 2022, the petitioner was issued termination letter by respondent no. 2 in compliance with the aforesaid order. Being aggrieved by the said termination letter, the petitioner approached this Court by way of instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 9th March 2022 has been passed without any authority and with a mala fide intention by the respondent no.1. The respondent no. 1 is neither the appointing authority of the petitioner nor the competent authority to issue any order qua the employment of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner is not even reporting or working under the respondent no. 1.
4. It is further contended that the Governing Council in the instant petition in their reports confirmed that the Directors of the hospital played fraud, forged the personal file, misrepresented the same to the Health Minister (GNCTD), got illegal approval and flouted various provisions of the Constitution of India as well as the Clauses 6.5, 12.1 & 31 of the respondent no.2's Memorandum of Association (hereinafter "MOA") applicable CCS Conduct Rules & CCS (CCA) Rules.
5. It is submitted that as per Clause 2.5 of the MOA, the term "Government" has been defined to mean the Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, appointed by the President under Article 239 and designated as such under the Article 239AA of the Constitution of India.
6. It is further submitted that as per Clause 6.2 of the MOA, the Selection Committee shall appoint an Institute-specific selection Committee for recruitment of doctors and the selection process shall be carried out at the Institute. It is furthermore stipulated as per Clause 6.5 of the MOA that the approval of the Governing Council shall be taken for the purpose of the appointment of Medical Officers, Specialist as well Teaching Faculty.
7. It is submitted that as per Clause 7 of MOA, subject to approval of the Government, doctors and other
The termination by an incompetent authority is invalid, and the competent authority plays a crucial role in employment decisions.
Termination of a temporary employee must comply with principles of natural justice and authority jurisdiction; failure to do so makes the termination invalid.
Termination of a probationary employee for unsatisfactory performance is lawful and non-stigmatic, requiring no formal inquiry or prior warning.
Termination of contractual employment must adhere to principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness, ensuring equal treatment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Non extension of the service contract cannot be termed as punitive in the garb of termination as there is no right vested in the petitioner to continue in the service of the respondent no. 2 on compl....
Judicial Review - The power of judicial review available to the High Court as also to this Court under the Constitution takes in its stride the domestic enquiry as well and it can interfere with the ....
The judgment establishes the importance of contractual compliance, including the submission of mandatory qualifications and adherence to prescribed dispute resolution processes, in employment dispute....
The judgment establishes that all government employees, regardless of their employment status, are entitled to the protections of Article 311, which mandates due process in disciplinary actions, incl....
Termination of a probationer must not cast stigma without due process; otherwise, it is deemed illegal and arbitrary.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.