IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
S.R. SEN & Prafulla C Pant, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Pankaj Kumar Singh - Opposite Party/Respondent
WA No. 35 of 2013
Decided On : 30.05.2014
Dismissal - Service - Assam Rifles Manual Chapter VII, Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule-11, Rule-14, Rule-5 - Devendra Kumar vs State of Uttaranchal & Ors: (2013) 9 SCC 363
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a Clerk with the Assam Rifles, was dismissed from service due to forged documents without being given an opportunity to defend himself. The dismissal order was challenged on the grounds of non-compliance with CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal order was passed in violation of Rule-14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as no inquiry was held nor any opportunity was given to the writ petitioner to defend himself. The court also noted that the employer had chosen to pass an order of dismissal under Rule-11 (2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, for which compliance of the provision contained in Rule-14 is mandatory.
Issues: Violation of Rule-14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, non-compliance with the Assam Rifles Manual Chapter VII, and the distinction between 'discharge' and 'dismissal' in the context of employment rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dismissal order was liable to be quashed due to non-compliance with Rule-14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the incorrect application of Rule-11 (2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The distinction between 'discharge' and 'dismissal' was also emphasized.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, with the observation that the respondents shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order under Assam Rifles Manual or to hold departmental inquiry and to give opportunity to the writ petitioner before any order of major penalty is passed under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
Prafulla C Pant, J
This writ appeal is directed against the Judgment & Order dated 1.07.2013 passed by the Learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 134 (SH) of 2012 whereby the said Court has quashed the order dated 31.10.08 dismissing the writ petitioner from service, and directed that the petitioner be reinstated.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused papers on records.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner C/4015273P Rect/Clk, Pankaj Kumar Singh was recruited as Clerk with the Assam Rifles. He was undergoing training in Assam Rifles Centre & School. On 31.10.08, the services of the writ petitioner were dismissed vide order dated 31.10.08 issued by the Commanding Officer under Assam Rifles Manual Chapter VII (e) and Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [for short CCS (CCA) Rules]. Copy of the dismissal order which was annexed at Annexure-I to the writ petition discloses that the birth certificate of the writ petitioner was sent for verification and it was found to be forged and fake. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Singrauli, District Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh carried out an investigation and found that the residential certificate of the writ petitioner was also found to be forged.
4. The writ petitioner challenged the said order of dismissal on the ground that the said order was passed in violation of Rule-14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as no inquiry was held nor any opportunity was given to the writ petitioner to defend himself. In the counter affidavit filed before the Learned Single Judge, the respondents have pleaded that verification report received from Tehsildar did not require any further verification and as such the order challenged by writ petitioner suffers from no illegality. The Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties found that the respondents (present appellants) failed to comply with Rule-14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 before passing order under Rule-11 (2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, as such, dismissal order was liable to be quashed and the same was quashed.
5. On behalf of the appellant, attention of this Court has been drawn to Para-8 of the counter affidavit which reads as under:
“8. That with regard to statement made in paragraphs 3(a),(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (i), (j), (k), (h), (I) and (m), it is respectfully submitted that as per the Assam Rifles Manual, 1994, Chapter VII enlistment and recruiting of the Assam Rifles Personnel, Rule-11 of Chapter VII is deleted and constituted as under :
(a) Verification roll of all recruits on enrolment to be initiated by the ARTC & S within 30 days from the date of enrolment after interrogation of rects by the training officer of their respective training battalions.
(b) If verification report is not received within the period of two months from the date of initiating, the first reminder will be issued to the Superintendent of Police.
(c) If report is not received within six months, a fresh verification roll of the rect. will be initiated by ARTC & S/Units where the individual is serving. If rect. is already posted out to a battalion, an intimation will be given by the ARTC & S to the concerned unit for progressing the case with the Civil authorities.
(d) Unverified rects should be warned by the OC unit and instruct them to obtain their verification report from the Civil authority in their own interest by liaison with Civil Police during their leave period.
(e) In case of adverse verification reports of any recruit from Civil authority, Commandant, ARTC & S S/OC Unit will discharge the recruit immediately.
(f) All possible efforts will be made by the ARTC & S/Battalions to get the verification report from Civil authority, where required and at the discretion of the DIG, ARTC & S/Units & S/Unit may depute a JCO/NCO on temporary duty to liaise with the Civil authority for this purpose. As such, the order of dismissal issued by the Commandant is in accordance with the Assam Rifles Rules governing the enlistment and recru
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.