Ram Raj Ram vs State Of U.P. And Others
2018 Latest Caselaw 1717 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 12
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 49680 of 2010
 
Petitioner :- Ram Raj Ram
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare, Pankaj Kumar 					Srivastava, Sasmita 							Srivastava, Shri. 	Ashok Khare
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C., C.K.Parekh, 							Devendra Kumar Mishra, 						K.K.Singh, 	R. P. S. Chauhan, 					R. P. Yadav
 
Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.

Heard Sri Siddharth Khare and Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned counsel appearing for Nagar Panchayat, Chandauli (respondent nos. 3 and 4) and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Perused the record.

The petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs :-

(I) to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 05.08.2010 passed by Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Chandauli, district Chandauli (Annexure - 4 to the writ petition) whereby terminating the services of the petitioner.

(II) to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the working of the petitioner as Class IV employee under them and to pay the petitioner his regular monthly salary.

The brief facts, according to the petition, are that the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis in the year 1986 in Town Area Committee, Chandauli. On 14.2.1990 the State Government issued an order permitting regularisation/absorption of daily wagers who have completed more than 3 years as daily wager against the substantive vacant posts. On 31.7.1992, an order was passed by Chairman, Town Area Committee, Chandauli whereby the services of 20 daily wagers including the petitioner were regularised and, thus, the petitioner was absorbed on the regular post of peon in Class IV.

According to the petitioner, he was working continuously on such post and discharging his duties to the full satisfaction of respondent authorities, when all of a sudden, on 8.2.2010, a notice was issued by Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Chandauli to him referring to some inquiry having been conducted under the orders of District Magistrate with regard to his educational certificates and alleging that according to the report submitted by Basic Shiksha Adhikari, the educational certificate of the petitioner has been found forged and fabricated. In the notice, the petitioner was directed to submit a reply within a period of 7 days.

In response to the notice dated 8.2.2010, the petitioner submitted a reply stating that in earlier verification proceedings, the educational document submitted by him i.e. Transfer Certificate, was found valid because earlier on 10.4.2008, the Additional District Magistrate, Chandauli had sent a communication to the Head Master, Junior High School, seeking verification of the Transfer Certificate whereupon the Head Master had verified the correctness of Transfer Certificates and had sent it to the District Magistrate, Chandauli on 10.4.2008.

According to the petitioner in earlier verification, it was certified by the Head Master, Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Ali Nagar that the petitioner was a regular student of Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Ali Nagar and his date of birth is 25.4.1952. But the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Chandauli on 5.8.2010 passed an order arbitrarily whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated. According to the petitioner, the termination order was passed by the respondents illegally and against the principles of natural justice only at the behest of one Ram Lal, Vice President, District Congress Committee, Chandauli.

Challenging the legality and correctness of the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner being a permanent and regular employee of Nagar Palika Parishad, his services could not have been dispensed with except in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law. However, without any enquiry and without serving any chargesheet on the petitioner, his services were terminated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the notice dated 8.2.2010 issued to petitioner cannot be equated with the chargesheet issued in a department enquiry. Moreso, in view of the fact that the correctness of the Transfer Certificate had already been verified on earlier occasion, there was no occasion for the department to send it for fresh verification. It is further contended that the petitioner being initially appointed as a daily wager against Class IV post in Town Area Committee, Chandauli, no minimum educational qualification was required, therefore, the Transfer Certificate duly verified by competent authority filed by the petitioner was sufficient in the context of appointment of the petitioner. However, the respondents without considering all these facts, terminated the services of the petitioner in a most arbitrary manner.

On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Siddharth Khare has submitted that as the services of the petitioner have been terminated without following the procedure and without giving any opportunity of hearing, the impugned order be quashed and the petitioner be permitted to work as regular Class IV employee.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the Executive Engineer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Chandauli in which the facts stated by the petitioner about his initial appointment and regularisation are not denied. However, It has been stated that a complaint was filed by one Ram Lal against the petitioner in the year 2007 before the District Magistrate, Chandauli alleging that the petitioner was working on the post of peon in the office of Nagar Palika Parishad, Chandauli on the basis of forged and fabricated Transfer Certificate. On this complaint, the District Magistrate, Chandauli directed the Head Master, Junior High School, Ali Nagar, Chandauli to verify the Transfer Certificate and submit a report in pursuance of which the Head Master submitted a report on 11.04.2008 that the said Transfer Certificate was correct according to the school register. Thereafter the District Magistrate, Chandauli sent a letter dated 2.5.2008 to the Executive Engineer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Chandaul mentioning therein that the complaint against the petitioner is incorrect and baseless. But the aforesaid Ram Lal made a complaint before the Commissioner, Varanasi and also before the Director, Local Bodies, Lucknow on which the District Magistrate, Chandauli directed the Additional District Magistrate, Chandauli to inquire into the matter himself who submitted a report that the Transfer Certificate was not found correct. Thereafter B.S.A., Chandauli sent a communication dated 27.01.2010 stating that the required information was already submitted on 21.10.2009. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 8.2.2010 to which the petitioner filed reply on 11.2.2010 and then the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Chandauli passed the impugned order dated 5.8.2010 terminating the services of the petitioner.

A perusal of the contents of the counter affidavit itself clearly shows that the respondents have not disputed the fact that the petitioner was a regular Class IV employee working on the post of a peon in their department. There is no such averment in the counter affidavit that any departmental enquiry was ever conducted against the petitioner with regard to the allegations. Thus, it is clearly evident that the petitioner was neither afforded opportunity of hearing nor any departmental enquiry was conducted against him before terminating his services, whereas the petitioner being a government servant could not have been terminated from service without taking recourse of the procedure prescribed under the Rules.

The termination of a regular employee from services is a major punishment which cannot be awarded to an employee without giving an opportunity of hearing to him thus depriving him from natural justice.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shridhar vs. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur and others, AIR 1990 SC 307 has held as under :-

"It is an elementary principle of natural justice that no person should be condemned without hearing. The order of appointment conferred a vested right in the appellant to hold the post of Tax Inspector, that right could not be taken away without affording opportunity of hearing to him. Any order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is rendered void. There is no dispute that the Commissioner's Order had been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant therefore the order was illegal and void."

Again in Shrawan Kumar Jha and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 SC 309 Court has held as under :

"In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the appellants should have been given an opportunity of hearing before cancelling their appointments. Admittedly, no such opportunity was afforded to them. It is well settled that no order to the detriment of the appellants could be passed without complying with the rules of natural justice."

In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.08.2010 passed by Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Chandauli, district Chandauli is hereby quashed. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 are directed to pay all the dues to the petitioner admissible to him in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 26.7.2018

S.B./ Pcl