LexRATNESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY versus INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, PATNA, BIHARAND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 717 RATNESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY v. INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, PATNA, BIHARAND OTHERS (CivilAppeal No.8662 of2015) OCTOBER 15, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.) A B Service Law- Termination of service - During probation - Whether the termination was simpliciter or punitive - C Determination of - During probation of the delinquent, complaint challenging his appointment on the ground that he did not possess requisite qualification - Ex pa rte vigilance enquiry - Enquiry report alleging his misbehaviour, 0 disobedience, etc. - Held: If misconduct/ inisdemeanour constitutes the basis for the final decision taken by competent authority, to dispense with services of the probationer, albeit by a non-stigmatic order, the Court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of termination simpliciter, the employer has E punished the employee for an act of misconduct - In the present case, enquiry was held behind the back of the delinquent and there were stigmatic remarks- There is clear violation of principles of natural justice - Holding of a regular enquiry was imperative - Thus, it was not a termination F simplicitor but was punitive - Direction to reinstate the delinquent with 50% salary. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In a given case, the competent authority G may, while deciding the issue of suitability of the probationer to be confirmed, ignore the act(s) of misconduct and terminate his service without casting any aspersion or stigma which may adversely affect his H 717 718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R. A future prospects but, if the misconduct/misdemeanour constitutes the basis of the final decision taken by the competent authority to dispense with the service of the probationer albeit by a non-stigmatic order, the Court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of termination B simpliciter, the employer has punished the employee for an act of misconduct. [Para 27] (740-D-F] 2. If an ex parte enquiry is held behind the back of the delinquent employee and there are stigmatic remarks C that would constitute foundation and not the motive. Therefore, when the enquiry commenced and thereafter without framing of charges or without holding an enquiry the delinquent employee was dismissed, definitely, there is clear violation of principles of natural justice. It cannot D be equated with a situation of dropping of the disciplinary proceedings and passing an order of termination simpliciter. In that event it would have been motive and could not have travelled to the realm of the foundation. (Para 28] (741-B-D] E 3. In the present case, the Vigilance Department, in fact, had conducted an enquiry behind the back of the. appellant. The stigma has been cast in view of the report received by the Central Vigilance Commission which was F ex parte and when that was put to the delinquent employee, holding of a regular enquiry was imperative. It was not an enquiry only to find out that he did not possess the requisite qualification. Had that been so, the matter would have been altogether different. The G allegations in the report of the Vigilance Department pertain to his misbehaviour, conduct and his dealing with the officers and the same also gets accentuated by the stand taken in the counter affidavit. Thus, by no stretch H of imagination it can be accepted that it is termination RATNESHKUMAR CHOUDHARYv. I. G. I. M. S., PATNA, BIHAR simpliciter. [Para 28] [741-F-H; 742-A] 4. It is directed that the appellant be reinstated in service within a period of six weeks and he shall be entitled to 50% towards his salary which shall be paid to him within the said period. [Para 29] (742-D] Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab 1975 (1) SCR 814: (1974) 2 SCC 831; Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another1998 (3) Suppl. SCR 558: (1999) 2 SCC 21; Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Un(on of India AIR 1958 SC 36: 1958 SCR 828; State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad AIR 1960 SC 689; State of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das AIR 1961 SC 177 : 1961 SCR 606 ; Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha 1980 (2) SCR 146: (1980) 2 SCC 593; Anoop Jaiswal vs. Govt. of India 1984 (2) SCR 453: (1984) 2 SCC 369; Nepal Singh vs. State of U.P 1980 (3) SCR 613: (1980) 3 SCC 288; Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177; Chandra Prakash
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.