Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on April 16, 2024 said that the termination of an employee's services without holding a disciplinary enquiry would be totally unjustified, contrary to the requirements of the law, and would constitute a gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta quashed and set aside a May 19, 2022 order for termination of services of appellant Sandeep Kumar as registrar of G B Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology Ghurdauri in Pauri Garhwal.

The court set aside the Uttarakhand High Court's division bench order of February 21, 2023 and single bench order of August 4, 2022 as well.

The top court found the division bench of the high court fell in grave error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant on the hypertechnical ground that the minutes of the 26th meeting of the Board of Governors dated June 16, 2018 had not been placed on record.

The high court held that the appellant did not place on record the minutes of the 26th meeting of the Board of Governors which were referred to in the termination letter dated May 19, 2022 and that this non disclosure tantamounted to suppression of material facts warranting dismissal of the writ petition solely on that ground.

The appellant's counsel submitted that the failure of the petitioner to place on record the minutes was neither intentional nor malafide. He referred to the minutes, which supported his case because the Board of Governors of the Institute approved the recommendations of the Selection Committee, and thereby, selected the appellant as the Registrar of the Institute.

He also relied upon a December 2, 2019 appointment letter which indicated that the appellant was being appointed to the post of the Registrar on probation for a period of one year. As the appellant continued to satisfactorily serve as the Registrar of the Institute for a period of nearly two years and hence, his services were deemed to have been automatically regularised in terms of the letter.

Before taking the action of terminating the services of the appellant, neither any enquiry was conducted nor any opportunity to show cause was given to him, his counsel contended.

The respondents contended that the very appointment of the appellant on the post of Registrar was illegal because he did not possess the requisite qualifications as per the rules. They said that there was no requirement to hold a regular enquiry before terminating the services of the appellant. 

They also contended that the appellant concealed a vital document in the writ petition filed before the high court and thus, he was not entitled to equitable relief in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 

However, their counsel admitted that before imposing the major penalty of termination of service upon the appellant, no disciplinary enquiry was conducted by the authorities.

The bench noted the division bench of the high court also held that the minutes not placed before it would have shown that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Registrar was made contrary to the rules. 

"We are afraid that these observations of the division bench are not fortified from the minutes of the meeting dated 16th June, 2018 which have been placed on record by the appellant in these appeals," the bench said.

The court also pointed out that a bare perusal of the minutes clearly indicated the recommendations of the Selection Committee, whereby, the appellant herein was selected on the post of Registrar were approved by the Board of Governors. However, a caveat was marked to the effect that the appointment order of the appellant would be kept in abeyance on account of the fact that some complaints were received regarding his candidature.

In pursuance of the so called complaints, a three member committee was constituted to scrutinise the documents and qualifications/testimonials of the appellant by order of June 26, 2019. The committee submitted its report on July 11, 2019 finding all the documents of the appellant to be genuine and in order. It also opined that the appellant fulfilled the eligibility criterion for being appointed to the post of Registrar, the bench pointed out.

The court also noted there was no dispute on the aspect that the appellant had satisfactorily worked on the post of Registrar in the Institute for nearly two years and thus, apparently he completed the probation period without demur.

"On a bare perusal of the termination letter dated 19th May, 2022, it becomes apparent that the decision to terminate the services of the appellant from the post of Registrar was not preceded by an opportunity to show cause or any sort of disciplinary proceedings," the bench said.

"The enquiry as referred to in the termination letter was in relation to the qualifications of the appellant for being appointed on the post of Registrar. The letter further indicates that the selection to the post of Registrar was not approved by the Board of Governors in its 26th meeting dated 16th June, 2018. The said observation in the letter dated 19th May, 2022 is totally erroneous and contradicted by the minutes of the meeting dated 16th June, 2018," the bench added.

The court, therefore, ordered the appellant to be forthwith reinstated on the post of Registrar of G B Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology, Ghurdauri. He would be entitled to all consequential benefits.

The bench, however, said the Institute would be at liberty to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the appellant as per law, if so desired.