Telangana High Court

Dr.Sudhakar Madhavedi vs The State Of Telangana on 30 June, 2021

Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
                 WRIT PETITION No.25056 of 2019
ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order declaring the termination order No.RGUKT/ADMN/Crime No.49/2019 dt.11.07.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent without giving opportunity of being heard as illegal, arbitrary, against principles of natural justice and against Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the order No.RGUKT/ADMN/Crime No 49/2019 dt.11.07.2019 by directing the 2nd respondent to reinstate in the service as Assistant Professor, Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge of Technologies, Basar, Nirmal District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

Heard Sri N. Manohar, counsel for the petitioner, and

Government Pleader for Education appearing for the respondents.

It has been contended by the petitioner that initially he was

appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Management

Studies in the respondent University and he has been discharging his

duties to the best satisfaction of his superiors and every one

concerned. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that at the time of

appointment of the petitioner, the entire regular selection process was

followed by the respondents, but the petitioner was appointed on 2 AKS,J W.P.No.25056 of 2019

contract basis on 22.03.2011. Counsel further contended that on the

basis of complaints made by some of the students and their parents

against one Ravi Varala, who was working as Head of the Department

of Chemistry, alleging that the said individual has collected

Rs.15,000/- to Rs.25,000/- from various students, the University

authorities filed a complaint on 07.07.2019 before the Station House

Officer, P.S. Basar and the same was registered as Crime No.45 of

2019. Counsel also contended that the police have conducted a

detailed investigation in the said crime and came to the conclusion

that the petitioner is also involved in the said crime. Counsel

contended that the petitioner is no way involved in the said crime and

has no connection with the said Ravi Varala. It is also stated that the

respondents, without conducting any enquiry and based upon the

police investigation report, have straight away terminated the services

of the petitioner vide impugned orders dated 11.07.2019 and the

termination order specifically states that since the petitioner was

involved in criminal case, the services of the petitioner were

terminated. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that

whenever serious allegations are leveled against an individual, such

individual should be given an opportunity of hearing to prove his/her

innocence, but in the instant case, before making bald allegations and

terminating the services of the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing

was given to the petitioner and no detailed enquiry was conducted and

also no show cause notice was given to the petitioner, which is

contrary to the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the 3 AKS,J W.P.No.25056 of 2019

case of D.K.Yadav vs. J.M.A.Industries Limited1, wherein the

Honourable Supreme Court has specifically held as under:

"It is thus well-settled law that right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution would include right to livelihood. The order of termination of the service of an employee/workman visits with civil consequences of jeopardising not only his/her livelihood but also career and livelihood of dependents. Therefore, before taking any action putting an end to the tenure of an employee/workman fair play requires that a reasonable opportunity to put forth his case is given and domestic enquiry conducted complying with the principles of natural justice. In D.T.C. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and others ( [1991] Suppl. 1 SCC 600), the Constitution Bench, per majority, held that termination of the service of a workman giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof without enquiry offended Article 14. The order terminating the service of the employees was set aside.

In this case admittedly no opportunity was given to the appellant and no inquiry was held. The appellant's plea put forth at the earliest was that despite his reporting to duty on December 3, 1980 and on all subsequent days and readiness to join duty he was prevented to report to duty, nor he be permitted to sign the attendance register. The Tribunal did not record any conclusive finding in this behalf. It concluded that the management had power under Clause 13 of the Certified Standing Orders to terminate with the service of the appellant. Therefore, we hold that the principles of natural justice must be read into the Standing Order No. 13 (2) (iv). Otherwise it would become arbitrary, unjust and unfair violating Article 14. When so read the impugned action is violative of the principles of natural justice."

Counsel for the petitioner contended that since the termination

order of the petitioner is punitive and stigmatic, in all fairness the

1993 (3) SCC 259 4 AKS,J W.P.No.25056 of 2019

respondents ought to have conducted regular enquiry by giving a

reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to prove his innocence. But, in

the instant case, no such opportunity was given to the petitioner and

straight away the services of the petitioner were terminated vide

impugned orders dated 11.07.2019. Therefore, counsel contended that

the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as they are passed

without following the principles of natural justice and the respondents

be directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all

consequential benefits.

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had

contended that in terms of the conditions of appointment, the services

of the petitioner were terminated as he was involved in a criminal case

and the police investigation also clearly revealed that the petitioner

was guilty of misconduct. Further, since the petitioner was working on

contract basis, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner

and no regular enquiry need be conducted. Therefore, the respondents

have rightly terminated the services of the petitioner and there are no

merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by

learned counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that

the impugned termination order dated 11.07.2019 is stigmatic and

punitive in nature. Whenever serious allegations are leveled against a

person and termination order is stigmatic, the respondents are bound

to conduct detailed enquiry in terms of the law laid down by the 5 AKS,J W.P.No.25056 of 2019

Honourable Supreme Court in the case of D.K.Yadav vs.

J.M.A.Industries Limited (1 supra), wherein it was held as under:

"It is thus well-settled law that right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution would include right to livelihood. The order of termination of the service of an employee/workman visits with civil consequences of jeopardising not only his/her livelihood but also career and livelihood of dependents. Therefore, before taking any action putting an end to the tenure of an employee/workman fair play requires that a reasonable opportunity to put forth his case is given and domestic enquiry conducted complying with the principles of natural justice. In D.T.C. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and others ( [1991] Suppl. 1 SCC 600), the Constitution Bench, per majority, held that termination of the service of a workman giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof without enquiry offended Article 14. The order terminating the service of the employees was set aside.

In this case admittedly no opportunity was given to the appellant and no inquiry was held. The appellant's plea put forth at the earliest was that despite his reporting to duty on December 3, 1980 and on all subsequent days and readiness to join duty he was prevented to report to duty, nor he be permitted to sign the attendance register. The Tribunal did not record any conclusive finding in this behalf. It concluded that the management had power under Clause 13 of the Certified Standing Orders to terminate with the service of the appellant. Therefore, we hold that the principles of natural justice must be read into the Standing Order No. 13 (2) (iv). Otherwise it would become arbitrary, unjust and unfair violating Article 14. When so read the impugned action is violative of the principles of natural justice."

A perusal of the aforesaid judgment makes it abundantly clear

that before issuing stigmatic order of termination of the services of an 6 AKS,J W.P.No.25056 of 2019

employee/workman, such an employee/workman be given a

reasonable opportunity to put forth his/her case and also a detailed

enquiry need be conducted. Admittedly, in the instant case, no

opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned

termination orders. Therefore, the impugned termination orders dated

11.07.2019 are contrary to the law laid down by the Honourable

Supreme Court in the case of D.K.Yadav vs. J.M.A.Industries

Limited (1 supra) and the same are passed violating the principles of

natural justice. On these two grounds, the impugned termination

orders are liable to be set aside.