Vinay Gupta v. Union Of India And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH 211 CWP-35700-2019 CM-6613-CWP-2021 Date of decision: 06.01.2022 VINAY GUPTA
...Petitioner
V/S UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA -
Present:
Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Alok Kumar Jain, Senior Panel Counsel, for the respondent-UOI.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.
(Presence marked through Video Conference) -.- ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL) Petition herein is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking to quash order dated 30.03.2019 (Annexure P-9) impugned herein vide which services of the petitioner have been terminated. 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents have terminated the services of the petitioner without giving any opportunity of hearing and/or without proving any allegations against the petitioner. He submits that qua same allegations, respondents themselves got an FIR registered against some unknown persons. However, after that they themselves decided regarding the guilt of the petitioner and did not even wait for the outcome of investigation and criminal proceedings arising therefrom. Therefore, the impugned termination order dated 30.03.2019 and advertisement issued vide office letter dated 28.06.2019 (Annexure P-10) qua the post of Monitoring and Evaluation officer are illegal.
3.
Learned counsel relies on the judgment rendered by this Court contained at Annexure P-13 reported as 2014 (4) SCT 481 titled Prem Saran Bansal versus State of Punjab and others, wherein following Supreme Court cited therein, speaking for this Court, my learned brother Mahesh Grover, J. (as he then was) held as under:-
! "
# $
%
& '
( )
%
"
%
* "
# $
!
" #$ %&'
+, - .
/
0 ,
(
1 2 &345*' $ 45
6
7
33&8'& '
+ 39
& '
: ( &8' 7
33.
:
:7
/
) ; :
< :. # 0 ;
:
+
+ :
:
:. # 0 ;
:
: (
%
( & ' .
( (
=
: -
>
(
(
=
6
=
: 4.
I have heard rival contentions of learned counsels. 5.
Concededly, from the record appended with the return filed to the petition, it is borne out that neither any show-cause-notice was issued to the petitioner nor any departmental inquiry was conducted before passing the impugned order dated 30.03.2019 (Annexure P-9) vide which services of the petitioner have been terminated summarily. 6.
Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for respondents to contend that as per enquiry report dated 30.03.2019 (Annexure R-1), there was sufficient application of mind, inasmuch as such, vide a letter is from a panel of 5 officers i.e. Deputy Civil Surgeon (National Health Mission), Nodal Officer (Mental Health), Nodal Officer (Malaria), another Nodal Officer (stream not mentioned) and District Programme Manager addressed to Civil Surgeon, Kaithal it is in turn stated that a letter has been received from the Investigating Officer-cum-SHO, Police Station City Kaithal that FIR bearing No.117 dated 16.03.2019 under Section 67 of the IT Act and Section 420 IPC has been registered against the petitioner. After finding significant evidence against the petitioner, the aforesaid panel was of the
view and accordingly recommended that contract of the petitioner be terminated without granting any further extension. Based thereof, the impugned termination order was passed.
7.
On perusal of record, it is thus sufficiently clear that aforesaid letter (Annexure R/1) cannot be termed either as an inquiry report or be construed as a substitution of the contemplated service safeguards provided to an employee. Neither show-cause-notice was issued nor any departmental inquiry was conducted wherein petitioner was involved to defend himself. Merely on the basis of self-serving one sided ex parte opinion formed by the panel, that too without conducting the proper proceedings, the impugned order has been passed.
8.
This Court is of the view that the employer is fully entitled to dispense with the services of a delinquent employee provided proper procedure is followed. If the same is not done, it is a fraught with misuse of power by the authorities that may be.
9.
Illustratively, assuming an employee is just going on the road driving his personal vehicle and meets with an accident, it could give rise to registration of an FIR. However, without there being any finding of his guilt or conviction against him, merely on the ground of suspicion of his involvement in a criminal negligence causing accident, he cannot be terminated from service. Similar is the situation herein, termination order seems to have been passed merely on the basis of suspicion as the trial is still at an initial stage, neither charge-sheet has been filed nor criminal trial has commenced.
10.
In the premise, impugned order does not stand judicial scrutiny and the same is, accordingly, set aside with consequences to follow.
11.
It is made clear that quashing of the impugned termination order shall not preclude the respondents to proceed in accordance with law, and pass fresh orders thereafter.
12.
Disposed of accordingly.
(ARUN MONGA) JUDGE January 06, 2022 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No