The Patna High Court, while allowing a petition filed against the office order issued by the Water Resources Department, by which the pension of the petitioner has been stopped after having worked for four years and eight months of his superannuation from the post of Mapak on account of termination of his service with immediate effect, held that the delinquent employee would be deemed to be in service, although he has reached the age of superannuation, only if a valid departmental proceeding had been initiated.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was appointed as Mapak vide office order issued by the Rehabilitation Officer. After 14 years of his appointment, he was terminated by the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation. The order of termination was put to challenge in CWJC No. 603 of 2001, and the writ petition came to be allowed. Despite the order of the Hon’ble Court, when the petitioner was not allowed to join his service, a contempt application bearing MJC no. 2934 of 2001 was filed. While the writ petition and the contempt petition were pending, the respondent authorities reinstated the petitioner. The petitioner superannuated on 30.11.2018. After his superannuation, he has been accorded all his post-retirement benefits. After four years of the superannuation, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice, in reply to which he submitted an explanation. But the explanation was rejected. Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that apart from the order being non-speaking and without application of any mind, the same has been passed on the dictate of the authorities of the Department. He argued that the very termination of service of the petitioner after four years and eight months of his retirement is wholly illegal and unsustainable.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal and void ab initio, as the petitioner was appointed temporarily only for three months when there was a complete ban on such appointment. The appointment process and reservation policy were not followed during the petitioner's appointment.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that termination of the service of an employee after retirement is unknown to the legal jurisprudence in the absence of any departmental proceeding on mere show cause notice. The only remedy left with the State respondent authorities was the procedure available under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, but the same was not done.
The Court observed that once the relationship of the employer and employee comes to an end, there is no question of termination of service of an employee, that too, on the ground that his initial appointment was bad in law. The delinquent employee would be deemed to be in service, although he has reached the age of superannuation, only if a valid departmental proceeding had been initiated. The departmental proceeding cannot be said to be initiated merely on issuance of a show-cause notice. It is initiated only when a charge sheet is submitted.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, allowing the petition, held that the impugned order causing the termination of the service of the petitioner is wholly unjustified, perverse, illegal and unsustainable.
Case Title: Chandra Kishore Sharma v The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Harish Kumar
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13706 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Harshvardhan Shivsundaram
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :