Allahabad High Court
Lakhawati vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Child ... on 5 December, 2019
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 23 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 33701 of 2019 Petitioner :- Lakhawati Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Child Development& Nutrition&Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Tiwari,Abhilasha Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.
Petition has been filed against termination order dated 25.10.2019 whereby services of petitioner as Anganbari Karyekatri have been terminated on certain allegation.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a perusal of the impugned order itself will make it apparent that ample opportunity of rebutting charges leveled against petitioner was never afforded. As such it has been submitted that the order is completely non-speaking in nature and requires to be set aside.
Learned State Counsel however has submitted that the impugned order itself reveals that it is based on inquiry report dated 23.09.2019 and that a team has submitted the said report after inspecting the centre in which irregularities have been found being committed by petitioner. Thereafter, show cause notice has been issued to her and upon consideration of reply submitted; the order has been passed which is perfectly just and legal.
Upon hearing of learned counsel for parties and perusal of record, particularly the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the termination order is based only on inquiry report dated 23.09. 2019. The order does not indicate any witnesses to have been produced to substantiate the charge level against petitioner particularly in view of denial by her regarding charge imposed. No witnesses appeared to have been examined nor any proper inquiry has taken place. Although it is true that petitioner is not a substantively appointed Government employee and is only working on honorarium basis as an Anganbari Karyekatri, if her services are to be terminated after imposing certain charges, this court is of the considered opinion that such an order terminating her services can only be passed after affording full opportunity to her since the said order not merely terminate the services but imposes civil consequences upon her on certain charges which are clearly stigmatic in nature.
However a perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the same is based only on the inquiry report dated 23.09.2019, which also does not appear to have been proved by producing the members of inquiry team.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State Bank of India and others vs. Palak Modi & Another reported in (2013)3 Supreme Court Cases 607 has considered the question whether termination of service of a temporary employee or a probationer can be treated as punitive even though order passed by competent authority does not contain any stigma. Upon consideration of various judgments, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"25.The ratio of the abovenoted judgments is that a probationer has no right to hold the post and his service can be terminated at any time during or at the end of the period of probation on account of general unsuitability for the post held by him. If the competent authority holds an inquiry for judging the suitability of the probationer or for his further continuance in service or for confirmation and such inquiry is the basis for taking decision to terminate his service, then the action of the competent authority cannot be castigated as punitive. However, if the allegation of misconduct constitutes the foundation of the action taken, the ultimate decision taken by the competent authority can be nullified on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice."
In view of aforesaid, it is clear that the order impugned has been passed without affording amply opportunity of hearing for defence of petitioner and is in fact virtually a non-speaking order.
Considering the aforesaid facts, the petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself that issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.10.2019. It shall be opened to opposite parties to conduct a fresh inquiry into the charges leveled against petitioner. In case such inquiry is conducted, the petitioner shall be afforded an ample opportunity of hearing.
In view of aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 5.12.2019 Om [Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]