Gujarat HC quashes termination of contractual staff over ‘irregularities’; orders reinstatement citing violation of natural justice
The Gujarat Additional Government Pleader submitted that, under a 2016 Government Resolution, the authority has the power to terminate the petitioner's services, and that the order cannot be said to be stigmatic.
The HC was hearing a petition of Kanhaiyalal Rot, who was appointed as the assistant depot manager by the Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation in May 2016 on a fixed pay for a period of five years. (Express File Photo) Holding that the 2021 termination of a contractual employee of the Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation was “stigmatic” due to the absence of a full-scale departmental inquiry, the Gujarat High Court quashed and set aside the termination order, directing that the employee be reinstated for the remainder of his original appointment period.
In an oral judgment Tuesday, Justice N S Desai held that “in the absence of a full-scale departmental inquiry, the services of the delinquent cannot be terminated if the order of termination is found to be stigmatic.”
The HC was hearing a petition of Kanhaiyalal Rot, who was appointed as the assistant depot manager by the Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation in May 2016 on a fixed pay for a period of five years. However, as per the petition, before the completion of the period, the mamlatdar of Shehra taluka in Panchmahal district carried out an inspection in February 2021, and found “certain irregularities in the stock at the godown”.
Consequently, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged at the Shehra Police Station for forgery, cheating and criminal conspiracy as well as relevant sections of the Essential Commodities Act for violations of orders related to hoarding and overpricing. Following the FIR, the petitioner’s services were terminated as per an order dated March 6, 2021, just months before the contract was to end.
Arguments from both sides
The petitioner, through his advocate, submitted before the court that the inspection carried out by the mamlatdar was “without following due procedure of law”. The petitioner also submitted that since he was on probation and the contractual period had not expired, “considering the language of the order, the termination can be termed a stigmatic order”.
The petitioner also pointed out that the inspection by the mamlatdar was conducted after GSCSC’s deputy general manager for Panchmahal district conducted a check, in which “no irregularities were found”.
The additional government pleader appearing for the state government opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner was “found to have indulged in misconduct which would dis-entitle him from serving any further.” The state also submitted that, in view of the FIR against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the petitioner’s services were “rightly terminated”.
While denying the contentions that the termination did not follow the principles of natural justice, the state government submitted that, under a 2016 Government Resolution clause, the authority has the power to terminate the petitioner’s services, and the order cannot be said to be stigmatic.
The state submitted that a “special panel was constituted and the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity of personal hearing, the same would amount to holding an inquiry” in adherence to the principles of natural justice.
What Gujarat High Court said
After hearing submissions of the two sides, the HC, in its oral judgment said, “…as the entire order is based on the above premises on registration of FIR against the present petitioner, prima facie, the impugned order can be said to be a stigmatic order.. required to be quashed and set aside and the same is accordingly, quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the petitioner is directed to be reinstated.”
The court, in its judgment, further clarified that the reinstatement would apply only to the remaining period of the petitioner’s contract at the time of his termination.
The oral judgement states, “However, the reinstatement would be only till the remaining period of his appointment on his original post, which the petitioner held prior to his termination, as if the order of termination was never passed… It is left to the discretion of the authority whether to continue the petitioner upon completion of the contractual period by placing the petitioner in the regular pay scale or not.”
The court also clarified that the state government could decide to “initiate a full-fledged inquiry” against the petitioner, provided it complied with the principles of natural justice. The judgment also stated that if the petitioner is entitled to any monetary benefits, “the same shall be considered notionally” by the State Government. However, there “shall not be any entitlement of back-wages to the petitioner”.
Share
