Delhi High Court
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors vs Ravi Prakash Meena on 13 February, 2013
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: February 13, 2013
+ W.P.(C) 4798/2012
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat with
Ms.Latika Choudhry, Advocates
versus
RAVI PRAKASH MEENA ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Sourabh Ahuja, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The technicality of the law pertaining to a stigmatic termination of
service of a person while on probation has created the problem in the instant
case.
3. The facts which we shall be noticing hereinafter bring out a paradox
in law of facts and law not always being in sync with each other.
4. In the year 1958 the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held in
the celebrated decision reported as AIR 1958 SC 36 Parshotam Lal Dhingra
v. Union of India that a stigmatic termination order of a probationer would
be treated as a penal order requiring inquiry to be held to establish the
wrong.
W.P.(C) 4798/2012 page 1 of 5
5. In the instant case, advertisement issued by DSSSB for appointing
eligible candidates as Trained Graduate Teachers clearly stipulated the cut-
off date as October 29, 2007. Meaning thereby, all candidates had to
acquire the eligibility by said date.
6. Respondent applied for the post of TGT Sanskrit and had to arm
himself with the educational minimum eligibility condition of B.Ed. Having
taken the examination in April 2007 and hopeful of the result being
declared, in anticipation, the respondent applied for the post in question.
Unfortunately for him the result was not declared by October 29, 2007.
7. The result was declared on January 28, 2008.
8. The respondent was one of the few successful candidates out of lakhs
who had applied for the post.
9. Being successful, letter offering appointment was issued to him. The
respondent accepted the same and started working till, in the era of e-mail
crawling with the speed of snail mail, the respondent started verifying the
dockets of the empanelled candidates and as regards the respondent detected
that he was not qualified as of the cut-off date i.e. October 29, 2007.
10. On September 21, 2010 a show cause notice was issued to him,
unfortunately containing words which are stigmatic of the character of the
respondent. After narrating aforesaid facts of the prescribed cut-off date
being October 29, 2007 and the respondent having acquired the B.Ed degree
on January 28, 2008 the Deputy Director of Education 'Sh.Jang Bahadur
Singh' wrote as under:-
"By concealing such material facts, Sh Ravi Prakash Meena
tried to betray the department fully knowingly that he was
awarded the B.Ed degree after crucial/cut off date".
W.P.(C) 4798/2012 page 2 of 5
11. Now, Mr.Jang Bahadur Singh, the Deputy Director of Education
forgot that by reflecting on the language used by him, the charge could be
levied against Mr.Jang Bahadur Singh of conniving with the writ petitioner.
Why did he not check the dockets in time?
12. Be that as it may, the respondent submitted a response denying that he
knowingly betrayed the department. He highlighted that he has taken the
examination well before the cut-off date and unfortunately for him the result
was declared late.
13. Unmindful of the law that stigmatic orders would be treated as penal,
Mr.Jang Bahadur Singh passed an order on October 05, 2010 terminating
services of the respondent and while so doing once again used the offensive
and stigmatic language i.e. of respondent concealing material facts and
trying to betray the Department being fully aware that the respondent had
not acquired the educational minimum qualification as of the cut-off date.
14. The net result is the Central Administrative Tribunal taking a view as
per impugned order dated February 23, 2012 that termination being
stigmatic it has to be quashed wanting an inquiry to be held after issuing
show cause notice to the respondent.
15. Now, but for Mr.Jang Bahadur Singh using a stigmatic language it
was a simple case of admitted facts evidencing that the respondent had not
acquired the eligibility norm on the prescribed cut-off date October 29,
2007. It would be useless and an idle formality to hold an inquiry.
16. Had Mr.Jang Bahadur Singh not been verbose, he could have simply
recorded the fact that scrutiny of the documents submitted by the respondent
would evidence he not being armed with the educational qualification on the
prescribed cut-off date. This would have meant that the Department would
have also accepted its procedural lapse. The simpliciter termination would
W.P.(C) 4798/2012 page 3 of 5
have brought the curtains down.
17. We asked learned counsel for the writ petitioner as to what was the
Department doing before issuing the letter offering appointment? Why was
the scrutiny not carried out before issuing letters offering appointment?
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that lakhs of candidates apply
for a few posts and thus it would require a lot of manpower to scrutinize all
applications before subjecting the candidates to the selection process.
19. We do accept this submission but it does not take the writ petitioner
any further beyond the date when the results are declared. The reason is that
when results are declared only a few hundred are empanelled keeping in
view the vacancies notified, thus scrutiny is limited? In the instant case we
find that the letter offering appointment to the respondent was issued on
June 19, 2009. The show cause notice was issued after more than one year
on September 21, 2010. It is too long a period to continue with the
verification. We pass strictures against the supine attitude of Sh.Jang
Bahadur Singh who is the Deputy Director of Education and has not ensured
that verification of the eligibility criteria was done promptly.
20. Fortunately for the respondent he is not overage for government
service but if he was, who would have been responsible?
21. Noting as aforesaid, since the inquiry into the matter would be a
useless formality and keeping in view the law that stigmatic termination
order cannot stand scrutiny of law we dispose of the writ petition issuing the
following directions:-
(i) Impugned order dated February 23, 2012 passed by the Tribunal is set
aside.
(ii) The stigmatic termination order dated October 05, 2010 shall be
treated as withdrawn by the Department and a simple order, non-stigmatic
W.P.(C) 4798/2012 page 4 of 5
and imputing no motive, would be issued terminating the services of the
respondent.
(iii) The Director of Education shall henceforth ensure that Jang Bahadur
Singh, the Deputy Director of Education would not exercise any disciplinary
control or would not issue any termination order for the reason the
gentleman appears to be blissfully ignorant of the law on the subject.
22. Fresh order terminating services of the respondent of a non-stigmatic
nature would be issued under the signatures of the Director of Education and
none else.
23. Copy of this order would be placed before the Director of Education.
24. No costs.
CM No.9918/2012 (stay)
Dismissed as infructuous.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(VEENA BIRBAL)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 13, 2013
srb
W.P.(C) 4798/2012 page 5 of 5
