Karnataka High Court
Muttanna Shankar Chavan And Ors. vs The Deputy Inspector General Of Police ... on 22 February, 2005
Equivalent citations: ILR2005KAR1456, 2005(2)KARLJ571, 2005 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 849, (2005) 105 FACLR 551, (2005) 2 KANT LJ 571, (2005) 2 KCCR 86
Author: N.K. Patil
Bench: N.K. Patil
ORDER N.K. Patil, J.
1. The petitioners herein, questioning the legality and validity of the Office Order dated 4th December 2002 bearing No.D.V-2/2002-EC.II on the file of the second respondent vide Annexure D, have presented the instant Writ Petitions. Further, the petitioners have sought for a direction, directing the respondents to continue the services of the petitioners in the post held by them with all other consequential benefits and on par with other selected candidates in respondents force.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in the instant Writ Petitions is that in pursuance of the Notification issued by the second respondent, which was published in the news paper in the month of August September 2002, inviting eligible candidates for selection and appointment to various posts including the post of "Safai Karmachari" and further notifying that all the eligible candidates desirous of joining the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), should attend for a personal test and interview including the medical test which will commence from 27th September 2002 onwards, the petitioners herein, having requisite qualification and the eligibility, applied for the post of "Safai Karmachari". After verifying the educational qualification of the petitioners, medical fitness and physical test, the petitioners herein have been selected and accordingly, the appointment Orders were also issued and the same have been communicated to the petitioners vide Annexures A1, A2, and A3 respectively on 11th October 2002 bearing No. R-II- 2/ 2002-EC - V (POLL). After receipt of the appointment Orders, which were made subject to several conditions, the petitioners have joined the duty and were discharging their duty efficiently and to the satisfaction of the superior officers in the vacant post of "Safai Karmachari" in the 91 Battalion, 109 Battalion and 109 Battalion respectively along with 63 other similarly employed persons. Be that as it may.
3. To the shock and surprise of the petitioners, they received the notice for termination of their services dated 7th November 2002 vide Annexures B1, B2 and B3 respectively. After receipt of the said notices for termination of service, the petitioners have sent a reply through proper channel vide Annexures C1, C2 and C3 respectively. Without considering their objections, without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to have their say in the matter and without conducting any enquiry whatsoever; unilaterally, the second respondent has taken a decision by passing the impugned office Order dated 4th December 2002 vide Annexure D, terminating the services of the petitioners. Assailing the said decision taken by second respondent vide Annexure D, and other consequential reliefs, as stated supra, the petitioners herein felt necessitated to present the instant Writ Petitions.
4. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners is that, the impugned Order passed by the authority is not a speaking Order in as much as the same is passed without assigning any reasons whatsoever in terminating the services of the petitioners. The said action of second respondent is purely based on some extraneous considerations and purely on assumptions and presumptions. Therefore, there is no justification in the Order passed by the authority, in terminating the services of the petitioners. He submitted that, it appears the second respondent has issued the termination notice purely on an alleged anonymous communication stated to have been sent by somebody. Before coming to the conclusion of terminating the services of the petitioners, the second respondent ought to have secured sufficient and convincing material for the charge and should have obtained the reply from these petitioners. Instead of that, the authority has passed the impugned Order, without assigning any reasons, finding or discussion, unceremoniously removing the petitioners from the services of the respondents, which attaches a stigma to the career of these petitioners. To substantiate the said submission, learned counsel for petitioner placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of THE MANAGER, GOVT. BRANCH PRESS AND ANR. v. D.B. BELLIAPPA, and vehemently submitted that the said decision has been relied upon by the Division Bench of Orissa High Court in the case of AJAYA MOHANTY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., 1981 (2) SLR 681. in respect of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, Rule 5 (1), and held that, an Order of termination of service of temporary employees without assigning any reasons, is hit by Articles 14 and 16 and the said termination is said to be illegal. Therefore, he submitted that, in view of the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court and the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court referred above, wherein the relevant Rule referred by the authority while passing the termination Order has been considered and law has been laid. The impugned Order passed by the second respondent is liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra the standing counsel appearing for respondents, to substantiate their stand, has filed a detailed statement of objections stating that, the termination Order passed by the second respondent does not suffer from any illegality for the reason that, these petitioners were appointed on temporary basis. Hence, their services are terminated without assigning any reasons and without any stigma and there is no violation of any law. As per Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, the impugned Order passed by the second respondent is in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the said Rules. He submitted that, the reasons for terminating the services of the petitioners is that, for obtaining employment, the petitioners have persuaded the Managers and without disclosing this, suo- motu proceedings have been initiated on the basis of the information received against the petitioners. Having regard to the serious nature of charge, the services of these petitioners were terminated by an Order simplicitor without stigma as their service was no more required for the - CRPF and the said termination Order is in accordance with law. He submitted that, the petitioners also have not made out any good grounds to interfere in the impugned Order passed by the competent authority -the second respondent herein.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the grounds urged by him, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents, and after careful perusal of the notice for termination of services of the petitioners and the impugned final Order dated 4th December 2002 vide Annexure D, it emerges on the face of the Order that, the second respondent has committed an error of law much less material irregularity. The said Order passed by the second respondent does not contain any reasons or discussions or finding whatsoever for terminating the services of the petitioners. Except referring sub - Rule (1) of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 read with Rule 16 (a) of CRPF Rules, 1955 and stating that, the termination notices of one month were served to the petitioners and after expiry of one month notice period, they are struck off strength of the unit as mentioned against their names with effect from 6th December 2002, no specific reasons are assigned nor has given any finding. The said reasoning given by the competent authority is contrary to the mandatory provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the said Rules read with Rule 16 (a) of CRPF Rules 1955. It is significant to note, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners that, similar matters involving consideration of the said rule had come up for consideration before the Division bench of the Orissa High Court in the case of AJAYA MOHANTY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (1981 (2) SLR 681) and the said Court, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of THE MANAGER, GOVT. BRANCH PRESS AND ANR. v. D.B. BELLIAPPA held in respect of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, Rule 5 (1) that, an Order of termination of service of temporary employees without assigning any reasons, is hit by Articles 14 and 16 and the said termination is said to be illegal. In the said judgment, the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court has extracted the relevant portion of the judgment of the Apex Court THE MANAGER, GOVT. BRANCH PRESS AND ANR. v. D.B. BELLIAPPA (supra) which reads as follows:
"..The protection of Articles 14 and 16 will be available even to such a temporary Government servant if he has been arbitrarily discriminated against and singled out for harsh treatment in preference to his juniors similarly circumstanced. It is true that the competent authority had the discretion under the conditions of service governing the employee concerned to terminate the latter's employment without notice. But, such discretion has to be exercised in accordance with reasons and fair play and not capriciously. Bereft of rationality and fairness, discretion degenerates into arbitrariness which is the very antithesis of the Rule of law on which our democratic polity is founded......"
7. Further it is held by the Orissa High Court that, since a charge of arbitrary discrimination has been levelled against the opposite parties, it was incumbent on them to show that the petitioner stood as a class by himself. There was absolutely no allegation in the return filed by the opposite parties that the petitioner was considered unsuitable or that his service was found to be unsatisfactory. Further, it was held that, the equality Clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution has been contravened and the final Order is liable to be quashed. In the instant case also, the second respondent, being the competent authority has proceeded to pass the Order, without assigning any reasons whatsoever nor has given any findings or made discussion and in short, the Order passed by the authority is not a speaking Order. The second respondent being the competent authority, discharging his duty as quasi judicial authority, the minimum basic requirement as- held by the Apex Court and this Court in host of judgments, is to see that, such Orders contain reasons, discussions and findings for termination of the services of the petitioners. But, in the instant case, after careful perusal of the impugned Order vide Annexure D, no reasons are assigned nor any discussion is made in arriving at the conclusion of terminating the services of the petitioners.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court as stated supra, I am of the considered view that, the impugned Order passed by the second respondent cannot be sustained.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners are disposed of with the following directions.
(i) The writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed;
(ii) The impugned Order passed by the second respondent dated 4th December 2002 bearing No. D.V -2/2002-EC.II vide Annexure D, is hereby set aside and the matter stands remitted to the second respondent.
(iii) The second respondent is directed to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law and to decide the same, after affording an opportunity, to the petitioners after taking into consideration the observations made by this Court in the course of its Order, bearing in mind the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court and the Division Bench of Orissa High Court referred above, as expeditiously as possible within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
10. With these observations the writ petitions filed by the petitioners stand disposed of.