IMPORTANT POINT
The removal of an employee without following prescribed disciplinary procedures is void ab initio, emphasizing the necessity of adherence to procedural rules in disciplinary actions.

JUDGMENT :

AJIT KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Shri Saurabh Tripathi, learned Advocate holding brief of Shri Alok Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Shekher Bandal, learned Advocate appearing for respondents No. 4 and 5 and learned Standing Counsel.

2. Petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by the order/ notice dated 20.02.2015 whereby he has been removed from employment of the respondent’s establishment with three months’ notice in advance. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate authority rejecting his appeal and affirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority.

3. Briefly stated facts of this case are that petitioner was initially appointed on 12.12.2007 on the post of Jamadar-cum-sweeper in pay-scale as admissible to such employees of a local body establishment, however later on his services came to be confirmed vide order dated 01.02.2009. It appears that thereafter taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner relating to the discipline at his end and creating scenes in the establishment by disobeying the commands of the higher authorities and misbehaviour with the colleagues, he was issued with some notice dated 12.01.2015 and the board adopted a resolution in the emergent meeting convened on 13.01.2015 asking the petitioner to tender his apologies fixing 19.02.2015. Since the petitioner, it appears, failed to appear to tender his apology, the board adopted a resolution to remove him from employment with three months salary in advance and so a consequential order was passed on 20.02.2015.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner questioned the decision taken by the Chairman which got referred to the District Level Scrutiny Committee and then also filed an appeal before the appellate authority, namely, the Divisional Commissioner, Aligarh on 30.12.2017 raising several issues including the legal aspect that the order impugned was a mere notice and so cannot be taken to be an order of removal from service to be justified within the legal framework of the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Palika Parishad Employees (Enquiry, Punishment and Removal) Rules, 1960, (Rules, 1960), however the appellate authority affirmed the order passed by the respondent local bodies under its order dated 13.06.2018.

5. Assailing the orders Mr. Tripathi, has raised the issued of legal propriety as to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings at the end of the Municipal Board on the ground that no such procedure as has been conceived in law was followed, insofar as the penalty in the nature of major action like termination/removal from service is concerned. Mr. Tripathi, has further argued that even going by Rules, 1960, the respondents were to follow the procedure as prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999 for the purposes of imposition a major penalty upon the delinquent employee. Mr. Tripathi, has also argued that looking to the order impugned passed under the joint signatures of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, it clearly transpires that Board had only asked the petitioner to tender his apologies on a particular date and since the petitioner did not appear, they proceeded to fire him. It is argued that in the absence of any charge being levelled and reduced into article of charge inviting explanation from petitioner, this action of the respondents is per se bad.

6. Per contra, Mr. Gangal appearing for the local body concerned submits that from the order impugned it clearly transpires that the petitioner had misbehaved and it was taken to be a serious misconduct at the end of petitioner and, therefore, the respondent proceeded to remove him from employment. Mr. Gangal also submitted that the authority has passed the order in the light of the relevant provisions as contained under Rules 1960 thus, he defends the order for the reason assigned therein.

7. Having heard learned counsel for respective parties and having perused the records, I find this much to be very cl