Removal From Service Challenged in High Court after CAT Tribunal

Last Updated on September 9, 2024 by Satish Mishra

This post is a case digest on Removal From Service Challenged in High Court after CAT Tribunal maintained the order of termination from services. The petitioner cannot be regularized or reinstated in the government due to his age. High Court held that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has erred in holding that the impugned order does not attract any stigma but is a simple termination. Since it was a punitive action, it was set aside and respondents were directed to pay some reasonable compensation to the petitioner.

Article 311 of the Constitution of India does not make a distinction between Civil Servants who are permanently employed and who are temporarily employed. Termination/removal amounts to stigma and therefore it is violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India read with explanation to the Rule 5 (viii).

Also Read- Challenge Suspension from Government Job in Court

Now let’s have the judgment:

Umesh Anirudha Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The challenge in this plea is to the order dated 05.05.2006 passed in Original Application No. 177/1995 by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, whereby the complainant’s removal from services was maintained. 3. The complainant was appointed on 18.06.1990 as Planning Assistant purely on temporary basis for six months and was posted in the office of the Assistant Director of Town Planning (Valuation), Aurangabad. Before expiry of six months period, the complainant filed Writ Petition No. 3634/1990 in the Court at Aurangabad Bench seeking his continuation on the post of Planning Assistant. In the said writ petition, this Court has granted interim relief directing the Authorities to continue the complainant’s services on said post till the candidate selected by the Selection Board is appointed against the said post.

Also Read- Service Matter Related MACP Scheme Legal Advice

Thereafter, the complainant had been transferred to Nagpur on the same post and while serving, on 08.12.1994, he was caught in trap led by State Anti-Corruption Bureau allegedly accepting bribe amount of Rs. 2,000/- It was followed by complainant’s termination by defendant No. 3 Deputy Director of Town Planning, Nagpur Region vide order dated 20.12.1994. Being aggrieved, the complainant preferred Original Application No. 177/1995 before the Maharashtra Judgment 3 228wp5740.06.odt Administrative Tribunal. It was complainant’s contention that he was removed without holding any departmental inquiry. Moreover, his termination/removal amounts to mental agony and therefore it is violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution Rule 5 (viii) (b) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979. 4.

Also Read- Types of Service Matters in Cat Tribunal Chandigarh

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal held that mere reference of registration of the offence against complainant cannot be called as stigmatic order and accordingly original application was discharged. So far as factual aspect was concerned, there was no dispute between the parties about the complainant’s temporary appointment on the post of Planning Assistant, his continuation on the post by virtue of interim order passed by this Court and subsequent removal by defendant No. 3 on 20.12.1994. There was no dispute that trap was led by Anti-Corruption Bureau against the complainant for accepting the bribe and accordingly crime was registered. Moreover, it was not disputive that no departmental inquiry nor any show cause notice was issued to the complainant before taking impugned action of termination dated 20.12.1994. 5. On said factual score, only short issue is involved as to whether the impugned order is stigmatic one, if so, the termination without holding inquiry would obviously vitiate since it amounts to penalty.

Also Read- Service Matters in Labour Court Cat Tribunal and High Court

 Therefore, the crux is to assess whether impugned action of defendant No. 3 can be termed as penalty. Though complainant’s learned counsel argued that a complainant who was Class-II Government employee cannot be removed but by the Government, however no material is placed to satisfy that complainant was Class-II Government employee. Mere reference of criminal case would not change the nature of order as penalty. It is submitted that the order is not punitive as the reference of criminal case is merely the motive and not the foundation for impugned action. In support of said contention, learned Assistant Government Pleader relied on the decisions of Supreme Court in cases of Wainganga Bhauuddeshiya Vikas Sanstha through President B. B. Karanjekar and others Vs. Ku. Jaya & ors., (Civil Appeal No. 6226/2019 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 4314 / 2018) decided on 09.08.2019, Judgment 5 228wp5740.06.odt Pavanendra Narayan Verma Vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and another, AIR 2002 SCC 23 and State of U. P. and others Vs. Ram BachanTripathi, AIR 2005 SCC 3212.

Also Read- Haryana Staff Selection Commission PTI Post Challenged in Supreme Court

In these cases, it was held that mere description of fact cannot be called as stigma. It is submitted that the services of complainant were purely on temporary basis and therefore, the authority has right to terminate the same without holding inquiry. Certainly, the Authority has such right if it is a simple termination without giving any flavour of punitive action. 8. In the light of said position, learned counsel for complainant submitted that the impugned order clearly reflects that the registration of crime was very much cause for removal and therefore it is punitive in nature. In this matter, he relied on the decision of Supreme Court in cases of BabuLal Vs. State of Haryana, 1991 (2) SCC 335 and AnoopJaiswal Vs. Government of India, 1984 AIR (SC) 636 . In these case, it is ruled that where the form of the order is merely a way for an order of dismissal for misconduct, it is always open to the Court to go behind the form and ascertain the true meaning of the order.no show cause notice was served on the complainant nor opportunity was given to him to be heard.

Also Read- Reservation in Promotion Cat Tribunal Chandigarh

Article 311 of the Constitution of India does not make a distinction between Civil Servants who are permanently employed and who are temporarily employed. The expression “no person” in Clause (1) of Article 311 includes all civil servants whether they have been appointed temporarily or on permanent basis. In that context, if the order is found to be of punitive nature, sans departmental inquiry, the order of termination held illegal. It was found out the termination was illegal but the reinstatement couldn’t be provided do it was held that compensation should be given as a remedial measure.

Also Read- Disciplinary Proceedings Procedure in India

In view of this, writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 05.05.2006 passed in Original Application No. 177/1995 was quashed. The complainant’s termination dated 20.12.1994 was held  illegal. The defendant/State was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to complainant within the period of eight weeks from the date of this order. .

One can read the judgment here.

For case specific advice, please contact best/top/expert Service Matter Expert related to termination/removal from service in government job in High Court or CAT Tribunal bench.

This post is written by Jashanpreet Kaur.

More info on 99888-17966.