Chhattisgarh High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner challenging that his reinstatement in service could not be treated as re-appointment, Goutam Bhaduri, J., stated that when the stigma of alleged misconduct was removed against the petitioner, which ultimately led to his reinstatement, then in such a case it could not be treated to be re-employment. The Court stated that the respondent was given liberty to hold departmental enquiry regarding the allegation made on the petitioner. However, the respondents themselves dispensed with it, which would take the petitioner to his original state of termination. Therefore, the period of eight years i.e., 19-04-1991 to 18-05-1999 would not be considered as break in service and on setting aside of termination of service, petitioner could not be treated as re-employed.
Thus, the Court held that the petitioner would be entitled for all consequential benefits including his seniority which was severed due to such termination. The petitioner should also be entitled for fixation of salary as also arrears of salary in between the period from 1991 to 1999 for which he was deprived.
Background
On 31-08-1989, the petitioner was appointed as tracer and his services were placed under Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Kachar Raipur. Subsequently he was transferred from the Chief Engineer and was placed under the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources. On 19-04-1991, the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources-Respondent 2 passed a termination order on the ground that as the petitioner was a member of Anand Marg, he was unfit for being retained in the government service. Thus, a termination order dated 19-04-2024 was communicated to the petitioner.
Subsequently, the termination order was challenged before the State Administrative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), and after eight years i.e. on 18-05-1999, the termination order was quashed on the ground of violative of principles of natural justice. However, liberty was given to the respondent to conduct a departmental enquiry regarding the petitioner’s alleged association with Anand Marg.
Thereafter, in compliance of the reinstatement order dated 18-05-1999 passed by the Tribunal, Respondent 1 decided not to proceed with any further departmental enquiry against the petitioner and issued the posting order dated 29-10-1999. Thus, the petitioner joined his service, but was treated as new appointee with effect from 02-11-1999 and no consequential benefits were given. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present petition stating that his reinstatement could not be treated as re-employment.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court after perusal of Rule 54-A of the Fundamental Rules, stated that a simple interpretation would show that when the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a government servant was set aside by a Court of law and when the government servant was reinstated without holding any further inquiry, the period had to be regularised. The Court stated that the liberty was given to the respondents to conduct the enquiry regarding allegations levelled against the petitioner, but Respondent 1 decided not to proceed with any further enquiry against him, which resulted into reinstatement of the petitioner.
The Court stated that in any case, when the stigma of alleged misconduct was removed, which ultimately led to reinstatement of petitioner, then in such a case it could not be treated to be re-employment. When the departmental enquiry as contemplated was dispensed with, the effect of Rule 54-A of the Fundamental Rules would come into play, which would take back the starting point of termination to 19-04-1991. The Court stated that if the Government servant had been terminated without adhering to the Article 311 of the Constitution, then in such a case the provisions could not be interpreted in favour of the State to deprive the employee of his legitimate claim.
The Court stated that the respondent was given liberty to hold departmental enquiry regarding the allegation made on the petitioner. However, the respondents themselves dispensed with it, which would take the petitioner to his original state of termination. Further, the period of eight years i.e., 19-04-1991 to 18-05-1999 would not be taken to be break in service and on setting aside of termination of service, petitioner could not be treated as re-employed. Thus, the Court held that the petitioner would be entitled for all consequential benefits including his seniority which was severed due to such termination. The petitioner should also be entitled for fixation of salary as also arrears of salary in between the period from 1991 to 1999 for which he was deprived.
[Abdul Rahman Ahmed v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 7526, decided on 31-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Anup Majumdar and Vibhor Govardhan, Advocates;
For the Respondents: Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
