The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday said it is contrary to natural justice to not give an opportunity to an employee before dismissal on the basis of an inquiry report.
The Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Brij Raj Singh passed this order while hearing a petition filed by the President, Nagar Panchayat and Another.
The special appeal is directed against the order of the single judge dated July 27, 2021 setting aside the termination order dated November 15, 2016, granting liberty to the appellant employer to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. At the same time, the respondent-employee has been held entitled to all benefits.
Submissions of counsel for the appellant employer are that the single judge has erred in setting aside the termination order on the short finding that the inquiry report dated November 11, 2016 had not been first served on the delinquent employee before passing the termination order dated November 15, 2016.
The counsel for the appellant relied on the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar; it has been vehemently urged, in such circumstances, the Single Judge was obligated to require the inquiry report dated November 11, 2016 to be first served on the delinquent employee and to call for his response thereto and thereafter proceed with the matter.
Second, it has been submitted that, in any case, having granted liberty to the appellant employer to initiate fresh proceedings, the Single Judge could not have found the delinquent employee entitled to consequential relief.
Also Read: SCBA chief writes to CJI NV Ramana on several pending issues of the bar
Last, it has been submitted, no prejudice has been caused to the respondent-employee in the procedure followed by the appellant-employer.
The special appeal has been vehemently opposed by counsel for the respondent-employee. He submitted once the fundamental requirement of natural justice had been violated in the domestic enquiry proceedings and the delinquent employee had not been first confronted with the adverse enquiry report dated November 11, 2016, no action could have been taken pursuant thereto. Therefore, the Single Judge has rightly set aside the termination order dated November 15, 2016.
The Court said that it is too late in the day to doubt the position that a delinquent employee is entitled to first furnish the enquiry report before any punishment order may be passed. Only once the employee furnishes the enquiry report, he may have the opportunity to meet the same before the Disciplinary Authority. Admittedly, the enquiry report was never served on the delinquent employee in this case. That fundamental error cannot be ignored.
The Court held,
“As to the principle invoked by the counsel for the appellant-employer based on the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar (supra), the same is of no help to the appellant-employer inasmuch as, it does not lay down that principle to be applied in writ proceedings, which proceedings by very nature are of judicial review. What reply the delinquent employee may have furnished, is not for the writ Court to consider since the charge has been refuted and the case involves a major punishment.So far as it is admitted to the appellant-employer that the termination order is occasioned by the enquiry report dated November 11, 2016, it was mandatory in law that the delinquent employee ought to have been first confronted with the same.”
Also Read: Allahabad HC directs ED from taking any coercive action against former UP minister Rangnath Mishra
The Court further held the decision relied upon and the principle being invoked is relevant only with respect to cases where defect in compliance of rules of natural justice is noted by a competent Tribunal or authority in the context of relief to be granted. The essential principle being that reinstatement is not a natural or automatic consequence of infraction of rule of natural justice. The Tribunal or the authority would be further obligated to examine its effect on the nature of punishment proposed to be awarded. That is clearly not the case here. The Single Judge has not quashed the punishment order but has only set aside the same and granted liberty to the appellant-employer to pass a fresh order.
Accordingly, while no interference is required to be made on the merits of the conclusion reached by the Single Judge, the Court said.
Also Read: CBSE Class 12 exam: Supreme Court quashes CBSE policy to treat improvement marks as final
The Court disposed of the special appeal with the following directions: –
(i) The appellant-employer may continue the proceedings from the stage of furnishing the enquiry report to the delinquent employee.
(ii) If such course is adopted, a copy of the enquiry report shall be furnished to the delinquent employee alongwith a show-cause notice, within a period of one month from today.
(iii) Upon such notice being served on the delinquent employee, he shall have further two weeks to furnish written reply to the same.
(iv) Upon such reply being furnished, the disciplinary authority may pass necessary order, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks there from after affording brief opportunity of hearing to the delinquent.
Also Read: CBSE Class 12 exam: Supreme Court quashes CBSE policy to treat improvement marks as final
Subject to the outcome of such proceedings, the delinquent employee shall remain entitled to consequential relief arising from the order dated November 15, 2016 having been set aside.