Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Guman Singh - Petitioner
Vs.
State of H.P. and Ors. - Respondents.
CWP No. : 4816 of 2020
Decided On : 06-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General
IMPORTANT POINT
Termination of service without inquiry violates natural justice, even if the employee's acquittal is deemed non-honorable.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus - Termination of service - Petitioner, a Part Time Sweeper-cum-Class IV employee, challenged termination based on alleged fake qualification certificate - Acquitted in criminal case, but termination upheld on grounds of non-honorable acquittal - Court held that principles of natural justice were violated as no inquiry was conducted before termination - Impugned order quashed, and respondents directed to reconsider petitioner's representation. (Paras 28 , 29 )
(B) Employment Law - Natural Justice - Termination of service without inquiry or opportunity to defend is a violation of principles of natural justice. (Paras 24 , 25 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed on a contract basis in 1999, faced allegations of submitting a fake qualification certificate, was acquitted in a criminal case, but his termination was upheld by the respondents without a proper inquiry. (Paras 2 , 10 , 18 )
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to defend himself, and the termination was based on unproven allegations. (Paras 21 , 22 )
Issues: The main issues were whether the termination was justified given the acquittal and whether the principles of natural justice were followed. (Paras 20 , 24 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that even if the acquittal was not honorable, it did not justify termination without inquiry, emphasizing the need for fair treatment in employment matters. (Paras 21 , 25 )
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed and respondents directed to reconsider the petitioner's case.
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:-
i) That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 31.07.2020 (Annexure P-8).
ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents reinstate the petitioner in service as Sweeper-cum Class IV employee with all consequential benefits.
2. The case as set-up by the petitioner is that he was appointed as Part Time Sweeper- cum-Class-IV, on contract basis on the honorarium of Rs.300/- per month by respondent No. 3, vide office order dated 28.07.1999. Petitioner joined his duties on 29.07.1999 in the office of 4th respondent. He was deputed at Primary Health Centre, Gatadhar, Tehsil Sangrah, District Sirmour, H.P. The appointment of petitioner was challenged before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, on the ground that the qualification certificate of the petitioner was not genuine. An inquiry was ordered by respondent No. 2, which led to registration of an FIR in the matter. The petitioner was prosecuted and finally acquitted vide judgment dated 13.09.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P.
3. The petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent with the request to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits on the grounds firstly that he stood acquitted in the criminal case and secondly his termination was based on a suspicion only. The representation of the petitioner having remained undecided, he preferred CWP No. 1211 of 2020 before this Court, which came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 15.06.2020 with direction to the 2nd respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a detailed and reasoned order. Petitioner was also granted liberty to file fresh representation, if so advised.
4. In compliance to directions issued by this Court, petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.06.2020 to the 2nd respondent. The representation was not decided within the time specified by this Court. Petitioner submitted a reminder dated 12.08.2020.
5. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 31.07.2020, Annexure P-8, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected.
6. Petitioner has raised challenge on the ground that the 2nd respondent while passing the order dated 31.07.2020 has overstepped his jurisdiction by wrong interpretation of judgment dated 13.09.2019, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillai. It has also been contended that the finding of 2nd respondent with respect to non-submission of the 5th Class certificate by petitioner is wrong in as much as no inquiry has ever been held by the competent authority and the petitioner has not been afforded any chance to defend himself. As per petitioner, respondents being model employer were obligated to act in a fair and transparent manner, but the conditions of the petitioner have been exploited to his disadvantage. Neither any inquiry was held nor any formal order of termination was ever issued. It has also been submitted that there was no requirement of passing 5th standard as a pre- condition for appointment as Part Time Helper/Class IV.
7. Respondents have filed the reply. It has been submitted that the petitioner had initially been engaged as Part Time Sweeper-cum- Class IV by respondent No. 4 in the year 1999 for a period of three months on a fixed honorarium to be paid by the Indian ‘Red Cross Society’, Sirmour. The services of the petitioner were engaged afresh as Peon-cum-Water Carrier under ‘Rogi Kalyan Samiti Scheme’ for 89 days, vide memo dated 25.10.2002 by 3rd respondent purely on contract basis on fixed remuneration. Petitioner had accordingly submitted his joining report on 03.12.2002. The said contractual engagement of petitioner came to be continued by renewal of the contract from time to time till 24.08.2004.
8. As per respondents, the State Government had framed
