Termination of a permanent employee on grounds of misconduct without a fair departmental inquiry violates the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution, as administrative action affecting civil rights must be procedurally just, fair, and reasonable.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

Prayer

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked under Articles 226/227 of the constitution of India seeking quashing of the letter no. 4768-70 dated 08.11.2024 (Annexure P-11) whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated, with a further prayer directing the respondent no. 4 to allow the petitioner to work as Safai Karamchari and to release the salary of petitioner in accordance with law.

Brief Facts

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Safai Karamchari in Village Singhpura, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, in the year 2008. Over time, complaints were received from villagers alleging that the petitioner was not performing his sanitation duties properly, resulting in accumulation of garbage and blockage of drainage, thereby posing health concerns.

3. On the basis of these complaints, the competent authority issued a notice dated 02.07.2024, followed by another notice dated 13.07.2024, calling upon the petitioner to respond and improve his work. The petitioner submitted a reply to the second notice. Subsequently, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide office order dated 08.11.2024. After the termination, another individual was appointed as Safai Karamchari in the village and has been working since then.

4. Aggrieved by the termination order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the said order and seeking reinstatement along with release of salary.

Contentions

On the behalf of petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned office order dated 08.11.2024 terminating the petitioner’s services is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural justice allegedly on account of personal grudge and under the influence of respondent No. 5, the Sarpanch. It is argued that the petitioner had been serving as a Safai Karamchari since 2008 and had rendered long and continuous service without any prior adverse record.

6. The issuance of notices dated 02.07.2024 and 13.07.2024 is stated to be a mere formality, as no proper inquiry or opportunity of personal hearing was afforded before passing the termination order. It is further submitted that the allegations regarding non-performance of duties are vague, unsubstantiated, and not supported by any independent or official inquiry.

7. Learned counsel also contends that the termination has been effected without following due process of law and in violation of applicable service rules. The appointment of another person in place of the petitioner is stated to be arbitrary and indicative of mala fide intent.

On behalf of the Respondents

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was not performing his duties satisfactorily, which led to serious sanitation issues in the village, including accumulation of garbage and blockage of drainage, posing health risks to residents.

9. It is argued that several complaints were received from villagers, pursuant to which notices dated 02.07.2024 and 13.07.2024 were duly issued to the petitioner, affording him adequate opportunity to improve his performance and respond. Despite such opportunities, the petitioner failed to discharge his duties properly and instead submitted a reply containing allegations against the authorities.

10. It is contended that the termination order dated 08.11.2024 was passed after due consideration of the petitioner’s conduct and persistent negligence, and thus does not suffer from any illegality or proced