Allahabad High Court
Dr. Neena Raizada vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 27 April, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1 of 2021
Petitioner :- Dr. Neena Raizada
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Mohan,Abhishek Bhushan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dev Kant Trigunait
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned letter/order dated 28.11.2020 passed by the respondent no.2 (Annexure No.18 to this writ petition).
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding/directing the respondent authority to permit the petitioner to join the post on which she was working before the issuance of said letter/order dated 28.11.2020 with wages."
2. Shri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Abhishek Bhushan, learned counsel for petitioner submits that facts of present case itself discloses that there was some malafide against petitioner. As on single day, three orders have been passed. Firstly, the order was passed in favour of petitioner dated 28.11.2020 whereby his probation period was extended for six months upto 2.6.2021. However, on the same day inquiry report dated 28.11.2020 was submitted wherein the allegations against the petitioner was construed to be true without even adverting to the reply filed by the petitioner on 20.2.2020 and on the basis of said inquiry, services of the petitioner was terminated on the same day i.e. 28.11.2020 without even taking note that few hours ago, probation period of the petitioner was extended.
3. Shri. P.K.Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 has supported the impugned order however, he could not be able to satisfy that a detailed reply was filed on behalf of the petitioner which was rejected in a single line that reply of the petitioner was not satisfactory as referred in paragraph No.2E of the impugned order dated 28.11.2020.
4. The respondent nos.3 and 4 were directed to be deleted by order dated 13.1.2021 and the respondent no.2 though represented by Dev Kant Trigunait, Advocate, however he remained absent even this matter was taken up for hearing in the revised call. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.2 to which a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed.
5. In the counter affidavit, averments mentioned in the writ petition though replied however, there is no specific reply that due process of inquiry was not followed and that the petitioner was harassed on multiple occasions by the respondent no.2.
6. Be that as it may, in the present case it appears that the respondents have acted in haste and on a single line rejected the reply of the petitioner that it was not satisfactory. Despite, respondent no.2 extended the probation period of the petitioner on 28.11.2020 yet on the same day, not only the purported inquiry report was submitted, but the order of termination was also passed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was in probation period though strictly a detailed procedure for departmental inquiry is not required to be followed, however, a substantial compliance of principles of natural justice are required to be followed which appears not to have been done in the present case. From the perusal of inquiry report, serious aspersions are cast with regard to the working of the petitioner which are stigmatic in nature. Therefore, the circumstances of the present case warrants interference by this Court under writ jurisdiction.
7. It is apposite to mention a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan High Court Vs. Ved Priya & Anr, 2020 SCC Online SC 331, paragraph 19 of which is mentioned hereinafter:
19. Probationers have no indefeasible right to continue in employment until confirmed, and they can be relieved by the competent authority if found unsuitable. Its only in a very limited category of cases that such probationers can seek protection under the principles of natural justice, say when they are 'removed' in a manner which prejudices their future prospects in alternate fields or casts aspersions on their character or violates their constitutional rights. In such cases of 'stigmatic' removal only that a reasonable opportunity of hearing is sine-qua-non. Way back in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of Inddia, AIR 1958 SC 36, a Constitution Bench opined that:
"28?. In short, if the termination of service is founded on the right flowing from contract or the service rules then, prima facie, the termination is not a punishment and carries with it no evil consequences and so Article 311 is not attracted. But even if the Government has, by contract or under the rules, the right to terminate the employment without going through the procedure prescribed for inflicting the punishment of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, the Government may, nevertheless, choose to punish the servant and if the termination of service is sought to be founded on misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification, then it is a punishment and the requirements of Article 311 must be complied with."
(emphasis supplied)
8. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by Rajasthan High Court Vs. Ved Priya & Anr, (supra), accordingly, the office order dated 28.11.2020 is set-aside as well as the consequential order dated 28.11.2020, (Annexure No.18) passed on the same day is also set-aside and it is directed that the petitioner be allowed to join the services within one week from today and allow her to complete probation period as extended. The respondents are at liberty to initiated fresh inquiry against the petitioner if so advised. However, they are directed that substantial compliance of principles of nature justice shall be adhered to.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with above observations and directions.
Order Date :- 27.4.2022
SB
