Can a Qazi be fired for deputies’ actions? Telangana HC reinstates Hyderabad official, sets aside earlier order

A single judge dismissed his writ petition holding that he, being the appointing authority, was vicariously liable for the acts of his Naib Qazis. The court found that principles of natural justice were compiled with since show-cause notices were issued. It also held that allegations of child marriages and illegal divorce certificates constituted misconduct, and upheld the government action citing sufficient material to exercise its power under Section 2 of the Kazis Act of 1880.

‘No person shall be condemned unheard’

A division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin, after hearing both sides, firstly, noted that the government has the power under Section 2 to suspend or remove a Qazi on grounds including misconduct and underscored that the provision does not define ‘misconduct’, nor prescribe any procedure for inquiry. “The absence of a statutory procedure does not absolve the State from complying with the fundamental principles of natural justice, especially when the removal entails serious civil consequences, the court said.

The court also noted that “the cornerstone of administrative fairness is adherence to the principle of audi alteram partem, which mandates that no person shall be condemned unheard.” In the case at hand, the court felt that the show-cause notice made vague allegations without mentioning any specific act, omission or misconduct. The court noted that no proper departmental inquiry was conducted and the appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the specific charges.

It also recorded that the appellant’s detailed reply, along with the documentary material including orders of acquittal and police reports exonerating him of any wrongdoing, was rejected without recording any reasons. It also pointed to an enhanced punishment of ‘removal’, without issuing any fresh notice, compared to the lesser penalty of ‘suspension’ proposed in the notice.

The court also reasoned that the Kazis Act does not envisage any vicarious criminal or disciplinary liability of a Qazi for acts allegedly committed by his Naib Qazis. “In the absence of an express statutory provision creating such liability, none can be implied,” the court said. It also found the reliance of the single judge on the doctrine of respondeat superior (Latin for ‘let the master answer’) and general principles of vicarious liability applicable to civil law as misplaced.

Regarding the alleged misconduct, the court explained that in the absence of a statutory definition, ‘misconduct’ must involve a wilful breach of duty, moral turpitude, or conduct unbecoming of the office and that mere general and vague allegations, unsupported by proof, cannot be equated to misconduct. It added that treating such unsubstantiated and unproven allegations as misconduct is legally impermissible.

The bench found fault in the single judge’s reliance on material such as complaints, First Information Reports (FIRs), police reports and affidavits filed by the opposite parties as established facts and added that FIRs and police reports were merely allegations and did not constitute proof. The bench concluded that the government order removing the appellant from service was wholly unreasoned and failed to disclose any application of mind. It said such a mechanical approach without analysis of defence or consideration of the material on record rendered the order arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

Does not prevent govt from taking fresh action

While allowing the appeal and setting aside the single judge’s order as well as the government order removing the appellant from service, the division bench also clarified that the judgment does not prevent the government from initiating any fresh action against the appellant in accordance with law, provided such action is based on specific allegations and conducted in strict compliance with the principles of natural justice, including a fair inquiry and reasonable opportunity of defence.