SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(All) 2579

[2008 (10) ADJ 283 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : S. RAFAT ALAM AND SUDHIR AGARWAL, JJ.
PARAS NATH PANDEY ..........Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR, NORTH CENTRAL ZONE, CULTURAL CENTRE,
ALLAHABAD .......Respondent
(Special Appeal No. 798 of 2000, decided on 1st December, 2008)

Headnote:Termination—Temporary employee—Who was discharged from service by an order simplicitor—Said appointment was purely temporary and terminable at any time, without notice—Petitioner moved an application on 30.7.1991 and proceeded to leave upto 8.8.1991—On 3.8.1991, a false complaint was lodged before D.M. against petitioner, alleging that he was of unsound mind, and require treatment—By order of C.J.M., petitioner was kept in hospital—In meantime, respondent passed impugned order of termination—Further, on 3.8.1991, F.I.R. was lodged under Section 353, Penal Code, then he was arrested on 3.8.1991—And, thereafter, on recommendation of C.M.O. remained in hospital from 7.8.1991 to 16.8.1991—On 17.8.1991, doctor gave a report that petitioner was of unsound mind—Hence, petition against—Dismissed by Single Judge—Hence, appeal—Question whether termination of employee was simplicitor, or punitive—Each and every case, has to be considered in light of the facts and circumstances of case—But, broadly factors, which Court found out herein in instant judgment, whether termination of employee is punitive, or not, has been given—Held, in instant case, impugned order of termination is nothing, but punitive one—Therefore, cannot be sustained—And error committed by Single Judge in dismissing writ petition, by upholding impugned order of termination—Impugned judgment, set aside—And petitioner entitled for reinstatement with all consequential benefits and also 25% back wages—However, open to respondents to proceed afresh against petitioner, in accordance with law. [Paras 57, 58, 49, 60, 63, 64 and 65]

       

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Aggrieved by the judgment dated 2.11.2000 of Hon’ble Single Judge dismissing petitioner-appellant’s (hereinafter referred to as the “petitioner”) Writ Petition No. 24972 of 1991 this intra Court appeal under the Rules of the Court has been preferred by the petitioner. The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 5.8.1991 whereby the Director, North Central Zone, Cultural Centre, Nyay Marg, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the “NCZCC”) has terminated petitioner’s services giving him one moth’s salary in lieu of

notice.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 11/16.9.1987 as Stenographer (Hindi) attached to Deputy Director (Admin) on consolidated pay of Rs. 1581.00 per month including all allowances. The aforesaid appointment was purely temporary and terminable at any time without prior notice. On 30.7.1991 the Director, NCZCC published an advertisement in daily Hindi newspaper “Aaj” inviting applications to fill up three posts of Karyakram Sewa and four posts of Prechagrah Sewa. It is said that on 30.7.1991 the petitioner met Ms. Neeru Nanda, the then Director, NCZCC and requested that his brother, Sri Surendra Nath Pandey, a handicapped person, may be appointed against one of the aforesaid vacancies which were advertised but she decline to help the petitioner. The petitioner’s brother filed Writ Petition No. 22437 of 1991 challenging the advertisement but the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 2.8.1991 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). In the meantime the petitioner proceeded on leave up to 8.8.1991 by moving an application on 30.7.1991. On 3.8.1991 a false complaint was lodged before the District Magistrate, Allahabad against the petitioner alleging that he appears to be a man of unsound mind and require treatment. On the same date he was called in the office of NCZCC. When he reached the office he was handed over to the police. The petitioner was produced before the Chief Medical Officer who referred his case to S.R.N. Hospital, Allahabad. Thereafter, the petitioner was kept in Ward No. 18, Bed No. 40 at S.R.N. Hospital for some time and in the meantime on 5.8.1991 the respondents passed the impugned order of termination. The petitioner further learnt that on 3.8.1991 a First Information Report was lodged at Police Station, Civil Lines, under Section 353, I.P.C. pursuant whereto he was arrested on 3.8.1991 and thereafter on the recommendation of Chief Medical Officer he remained in the hospital from 7.8.1991 to 16.8.1991. Admittedly, on 17.8.1991 Dr. V.K. Singh gave a report certifying that the petitioner was of sound mind and did not suffer any psychiatric illness. The Chief Medical Officer also signed the said report and sent to the City Magistrate, Allahabad.

3. The order of termination was challenged in the writ petition on the ground that it is founded on the alleged false allegations contained in the First Information Report dated 3.8.1991 and, therefore, punitive. It is also alleged that the service of other temporary employees has continued while only the petitioner has been singled out and, therefore, the order is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. The Hon’ble Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that the termination of petitioner is simplicitor and not founded on any alleged misconduct, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the counter affidavit also revealed that a fact finding inquiry was conducted by the Administrative Officer, NCZCC wherein he submitted a report observing that the petitioner is guilty of alleged misconduct. He also observed that the petitioner is not fit to be retained in service and should be terminated. In the circumstances, considering over all facts and material available, it is evident that in respect to alleged incide





























































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top