Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
IRSHAD ALI, J.
O.P.Trivedi – Appellant
Versus
Chairman Bhagirath Gramin Bank And Others – Respondents
Writ A No.8256 of 1992
Decided on : 07-07-2023
Dismissal - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - Staff Service Regulation, 1980 - [JUNIOR CLERK APPOINTMENT] - [Staff Service Regulation, 1980] - [Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, State of Uttaranchal v. Kharak Singh, Chamoli District Co-operative Bank v. Raghunath Singh Rana, Om Prakash Gond v. State of U.P., Vikalp Kumar v. State of U.P.] - The court found that the dismissal order was passed without following the due procedure of law and without conducting the departmental inquiry as per settled norms. The impugned orders were quashed and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service with the opportunity to submit his explanation in a new departmental inquiry conducted strictly in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Junior Clerk, was dismissed from service without being provided with a show cause notice or a copy of the inquiry report, and without being afforded an adequate opportunity to defend himself. The dismissal was found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal order was passed without following the due procedure of law and without conducting the departmental inquiry as per settled norms. The impugned orders were quashed and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service with the opportunity to submit his explanation in a new departmental inquiry conducted strictly in accordance with the law.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, dismissal without due procedure of law, lack of opportunity to defend
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dismissal order was passed without following the due procedure of law and without conducting the departmental inquiry as per settled norms, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were quashed and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service with the opportunity to submit his explanation in a new departmental inquiry conducted strictly in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Dharmendra Dixit, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to give all the service benefits which have been given to the persons, junior to the petitioner;
(c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner from services, dated 11.2.1992 and 8.9.1992 respectively, dismissing the service of the petitioner, contained in Annexure Nos.6 and 9 to the writ petition.
(d) issue or pass any other writ, order or direction in the nature and manner which may be deemed just and expedient in the circumstances of the case; and
(e) allow the writ petition with costs."
3. Facts of the case are that on 28.12.1979 the petitioner was appointed for a period of thirty days for term appointment and thereafter he was appointed for sixty days and 90 days and the appointment letters to the said effect were issued for the said term. The appointment letters were issued to the petitioner from time to time in this regard. Thereafter, the interview of the petitioner was held on 10.1.1983 at 11.00a.m. and the petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Junior Clerk on 10.2.1983 in the pay scale of Rs.354-550 plus dearness allowance and he was placed on probation for a period of twelve months.
One Shri D.S. Mishra who was the Manager of the Branch of the Bank in which the petitioner was working as a Junior Clerk developed malafide intention towards the petitioner and as the petitioner, who was working under him, he harassed the petitioner a good number of time in different ways and also alleged that the petitioner is responsible for the embezzlement of the alleged amount, while the petitioner had no knowledge of time.
The respondents did not give any show cause notice and the petitioner was also not given copy of the finding report of the enquiry report before passing the dismissal order and the petitioner was not also afforded any adequate opportunity prior to the issuance of the order dated 11.2.1991 dismissing the petitioner from his services. There is specific mention in the Bhagirath Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulation, 1980 that these regulations are not applicable to the employees who have been appointed temporarily or to the persons recruited on special contract.
The petitioner also submitted his appeal on dated 25.3.1991 against the said dismissal order of the petitioner from service, which has also been passed without passing any reasoned and speaking order on 8.9.1982
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents, in most illegal arbitrary and discriminatory manner, dismissed the petitioner from services, which is in violation of the provisions, contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the Staff Service Regulation, 1980 could not made available for application to the petitioner who was employed temporarily or on special contract.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that there is specific provision under Staff Service Regulation, 1980 as not to apply such regulations on the employees, who have been employed temporarily on daily wages or recruited on special contract.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that there is specific provision under Staff Service Regulation, 1980 as not to apply such regulations on the employees who have been employed temporarily on daily wages or recruited on special cont
The principles of natural justice require that a delinquent employee be given a copy of the preliminary enquiry report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the ....
The right to receive the enquiry report and a second show-cause notice is a fundamental aspect of the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, and failure to provide these rights in....
Disciplinary authority must supply enquiry report to employee before forming punishment opinion; failure breaches natural justice without needing prejudice proof; proceedings remanded for compliance.
The failure to furnish an enquiry report to an employee before the imposition of a penalty and the enquiry officer assuming the dual role of judge and prosecutor are violations of natural justice tha....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
