Karnataka High Court: P.B. Bajanthri, while allowing the present writ petition against the termination of services without any disciplinary enquiry, reiterated the settled precedents and further vested the liberty to conduct the said enquiry, now, with the respondent authority, in accordance with law.
Brief Facts
The facts of the case are enumerated hereunder;
- That petitioner was working as a bill collector in Hinkal Gram Panchayat, Mysuru Taluk, Karnataka.
- That the petitioner was terminated from the said position, on the basis of certain allegations relating to demand and acceptance of bribe pursuant to the trap proceedings conducted by the Lokayukta Police.
- That the instant writ petition was brought against the resolution of termination, dated 21-10-2014 and communication of the same on 23-10-2014.
- That the petitioner was protected by an interim order during the pendency of the present petition.
Issue
- Whether the immediate termination order against the petitioner, without any further enquiry, justified by law?
Observation
- The Court cited Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600, wherein the Supreme Court clarified the approach that should be followed by any executive authority in such cases, placing reliance on;
“264. Sukhdev v. Bhagatram, (1975) 1 SCC 421; The Constitution Bench of this Court put a nail in the coffin of the play of the private master’s power to hire and fire his employees and held that Regulations or Rules made under a statute apply uniformly to everyone or to all members of the same group or class. They impose obligations on the statutory authorities who cannot deviate from the conditions of service and any deviation will be enforced through legal sanction of declaration by Courts to invalidate the actions in violation of the Rules or Regulations. The statutory bodies have no free hand in framing the terms or conditions of service of their employees. The regulations bind both the authorities and also the public. The powers of the statutory bodies are derived, controlled and restricted by the statutes which create them and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder.
- (…) it is open to authorities to terminate the services of a temporary employee without holding an enquiry. But in view of the march of law made, viz., that it is not the form of the action but the substance of the order is to be looked into, it is open to the Court to lift the veil and pierce the impugned action to find whether the impugned action is the foundation to impose punishment or is only a motive. A larger bench of seven judges of this Court in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831 elaborately considered the question and laid down the rule in this regard. Whether no misconduct spurns the action or whether the services of a probationer are terminated without imputation of misconduct is the test. Termination simpliciter, either due to loss of confidence or unsuitability to the post may be a relevant factor to terminate the services of a probationer. But it must be hedged with a bona fide overall consideration of the previous conduct without being tainted with either mala fide or colorable exercise of power or for extraneous considerations.
Decision
While allowing the Writ Petition, the Court held that the petitioner successfully made a prima facie case against the respondent authority, so to quash the resolution dated 21-10-2014 and communication dated, 23-10-2014. The Court further vested the liberty to conduct a disciplinary enquiry at the behest of the respondents, in accordance with the law.[K.S. Puttaswamy v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1631, Decided on 7-10-2020]
Sakshi Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this story together
