The Patna High Court, while allowing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the termination order dated 17.07.2013, which restrained him from continuing in his position as Block Health Manager, held that the respondents should have re-examined the entire matter, especially the documents that were the basis of the termination before rejecting the petitioner's request for reinstatement. Their refusal to do so demonstrates an arbitrary approach, denying the petitioner his legitimate right to procedural fairness post-acquittal.
Brief Facts:
The instant case arises from the petitioner's contractual appointment as Block Health Manager under the District Health Society (DHS). In July 2013, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner, accusing him of submitting a forged MBA mark sheet during his appointment. Based on this FIR, his contract was terminated on 17.07.2013. The petitioner challenged his termination, which was dismissed. Petitioner then appealed, and the Division Bench gave him liberty to file a representation before the District Magistrate, which the Petitioner did. However, the representation was rejected on 30.06.2023, prompting this writ petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the termination was illegal and in violation of Article 311, as the MOIC, PHC, Barhat was not an authorised Authority to issue such an order. No departmental inquiry or show cause notice was given before his termination, violating the principles of natural justice. The FIR was based on a fabricated photocopy, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted him of all charges, establishing that the allegations against him were false.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the petitioner's contractual appointment had already expired by the time of his termination, and he has no legal right to continue in the post. The verification process revealed that the petitioner's mark sheet was forged, and hence, his termination was justified. The petitioner's acquittal was not honourable, and the respondents are not obligated to reinstate him based solely on the acquittal.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the termination of the petitioner was carried out based on an FIR alleging submission of a forged document. While the petitioner was acquitted of criminal charges, the District Magistrate's decision to reject the petitioner's reinstatement was based on the fact that the acquittal was not honourable.
The Court observed that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to address the allegations or participate in a departmental inquiry where he could defend himself against the charges of forgery. The Court said that the failure to provide the petitioner an opportunity to present any new evidence or explanations after his acquittal and the refusal to reconsider the documents in question violates the principles of natural justice. The respondents should have re-examined the entire matter, especially the documents that were the basis of the termination, before rejecting the petitioner's request for reinstatement. Their refusal to do so demonstrates an arbitrary approach, denying the petitioner his legitimate right to procedural fairness post-acquittal.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, allowing the petition, held that the petitioner had established the legal right to his reinstatement or back wages.
Case Title: Kanchan Kumar Mishra v The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15368 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Kanchan Kumar Mishra
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Nagendra Pd. Yadav
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
