In Sanjay Dadich v. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 2590, the Rajasthan High Court recently set aside an order issued by the State Government that dismissed a Physical Education Teacher (PET) from service allegedly for furnishing a forged sports certificate for getting appointment, on the ground that the said teacher was not given any notice of charge-sheet and there was no enquiry conducted against him.
The single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed:
“The order was manifestly stigmatic action taken to terminate petitioner’s service. Such action could not have been taken against the petitioner without giving him a full-fledged opportunity of hearing to defend and after holding regular departmental enquiry. The employer is not allowed to hire and fire, even if allegations are there against the employee with regard to any misconduct. The services cannot be given a go-bye by one stroke of pen on the ground of misconduct by casting stigma, without holding regular enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice.”
The Court noted that where orders are to be made against a person it becomes duty of the authority to hear judicially, in an objective manner, impartially and after giving reasonable opportunity to the person concerned to place his case before it.
The Court observed: “Passing an order which affects a person, without giving him an opportunity of being heard would be held to be vitiated as being contrary to principles of natural justice. If the safeguards provided by Article 311 of the Constitution are not to be rendered illusory, the words "reasonable opportunity" must be deemed to mean a real and adequate opportunity which is not merely nominal or a shame one. It is well settled principle of law that an order of removal from service which denied the person reasonable opportunity of defending himself in disregard of protection afforded by Article 311(2) of the Constitution, is a nullity and non-existent in the eye of law.”
It was highlighted by the Court that no notice or charge sheet was served upon the petitioner and no documents were supplied to the petitioner to seek his explanation that the sports certificates furnished by him were fake and fabricated.
“It is worthy to note here that before passing the impugned dismissal order, no explanation was sought by the respondents, no notice of charge sheet was given to him and no enquiry was conducted against him, no affording opportunity given to rebut the allegations levelled against him,” the Court said.
The Court noted that the enquiry contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India is what is generally known as a departmental enquiry and the constitutional requirement for a proper enquiry within the meaning of Article 311(2) are basically two-fold:
1. The civil servant must be informed of the charges against him, and
2. He must be offered a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.
The Court placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Jai Shanker v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1966 SC 492; Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (1971) 2 SCC 330 and State of Assam v. Akshaya Kumar Deb (1975) 4 SCC 339. The Court noted that the petitioner was a permanent government employee and he has constitutional safeguard and protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, as such it was absolutely imperative on the part of the respondents to give him an opportunity to defend his proposed dismissal from service, which was not given to the petitioner.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned dismissal order and granted liberty to the respondents to hold fresh enquiry against the petitioner, in accordance with law and conclude the same within six months.
Comments