IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Surepalli Nanda, J.
Md. Ebadulla Khan - Petitioner
Versus
The Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited. Rep. by its Senior Divisional Manager - Respondents
W.P. No. 4182 of 2013
Decided On : 22-07-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 - LIC of India Staff Regulations, 1960 - Regulation39(1) (A) - Penalties - Temporary employee – Power of High court to issue writs - Writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondent in issuing impugned proceeding No.P&IR as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service duly granting all other consequential benefits, such as continuity of service and back wages etc - Court has held that the effect which an order of termination may have on a person's future prospects of employment is a matter of relevant consideration.(Para 11).
Finding of the court: Court opines that it is mandatory for the appointing authority to conduct enquiry and thereafter, discharge the petitioner - It is well settled position of law that a probationer/employee could be discharged from service for unsuitability and not on imputing allegations. The impugned order is not an order of discharge simplicitor but it is an order of discharge imputing allegations against petitioner which attaches stigma.
Results: Writ petition dispose of.
ORDER :
1. Heard Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and SriBathula Raj Kiran, learned Standing Counsel for LIC.
2. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing impugned proceeding No.P&IR dated 16-01-2013 as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service duly granting all other consequential benefits, such as continuity of service and back wages etc.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner is appointed as Peon on temporary basis in the office of the 2ndRespondent in the month of March, 2003 and consequently, after putting more than 8 years of service as temporary employee, the petitioner was appointed as peon on regular basis on 18.02.2012 after passing written test conducted on 26.06.2011, oral interview on 11.07.2011. The petitioner joined on 22.02.2012 and after completing six months, his probation was declared on 21.08.2012. When an anonymous complaint was received that the certificates produced by the petitioner i.e. transfer certificate No. 45400 dated 26.08.1995 and the 9th class marks memo from Government High School, Padmanagar, Karimnagar District are fake, proceedings dated 02.01.2013 was issued to the petitioner to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 05.1.2013 categorically pleading that the allegation made against him is incorrect and false and that the certificates submitted by him are from Government High-School, Peddapally, but not basing on the alleged certificate of Government High School, Padmanagar. However, without considering any of the submissions made by the petitioner impugned proceeding dated 16.01.2013 was issued by the 2nd Respondent terminating him service with immediate effect on the premise that the petitioner is a probationer. In this regard, the petitioner submitted that, his probation period was only limited to 6 months, which is extendable on completion of probationary period. However, the fact remains that his probation has not been extended by the authorities, at any point of time. Therefore, the petitioner is deemed to be a regular employee. However, the 2ndrespondent issued the impugned order by imposing penalty of removal from service under Regulation39(1) (A) of LIC of India Staff Regulations, 1960 with immediate effect. The said proceeding dated 02.01.2013 was issued exclusively basing on an alleged complaint submitted by some unknown persons and also the alleged report received from the Head Master, Govt. High School, Padmanagar dated 16.08.2012. Basing on the said documents, which were obtained without petitioner’s knowledge, the 2ndrespondent is not expected to terminate petitioner’s services. A regular employee cannot be terminated without holding any regular departmental enquiry. Further, the termination of the petitioner is not one of the enumerated penalties under the staff regulations. It is incumbent on the part of the 2nd respondent to hold a regular departmental enquiry before arriving at a conclusion. However, in the instant case, no enquiry was conducted. None of the petitioner’s submissions were considered by the disciplinary authority before terminating his services. As such impugned order of termination of the 2nd respondent dated 16.01.2013 is liable to be set aside. Hence, this writ petition is filed.
4. The respondents filed counter contending as follows:
The employment notice dated 20.05.2011 stipulates that the candidates, who do not satisfy the eligibility conditions are liable to be disqualified at any stage of selection. Appointment letter was issued to the petitioner, based on the certificates viz., Form of Transfer Certificate No.45400, dated 26.08.1995 and Memorandum of Marks of 9th class pass in the month of April, 1990 mentioning Date of Birth of the petitioner as 20.07.1975, with admission No. 3864, issued by Government High School, Padmanagar, K
Bishan Lal Gupta v. State of Haryana
Vijayakumaran C.P.V v Central University of Kerala and others
SupremeToday
A termination order based on allegations of misconduct without conducting a departmental inquiry is stigmatic and punitive in nature, requiring compliance with principles of natural justice.
Probationary employees have limited protections under Article 311, permitting non-stigmatic terminations based on suitability assessments without the full rigor of disciplinary proceedings.
Termination of a probationer must not cast stigma without due process; otherwise, it is deemed illegal and arbitrary.
Stigmatic termination orders founded on misconduct allegations, even for temporary/co-terminus employees, require formal enquiry and competent authority approval for show cause; pending disclosed FIR....
Termination of a probationary employee requires a departmental inquiry if allegations of misconduct are made, and continued employment without formal disengagement results in deemed permanency.
A probationer is entitled to certain protection, and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily or in a punitive manner without complying with the principles of natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for adherence to the principles of natural justice in employment disengagement, emphasizing the need for a detailed enquiry and opp....
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.