Jharkhand High Court
The Netarhat Vidyalaya Samiti vs Sheetal Barnwal on 22 September, 2022
Author: Ravi Ranjan
Bench: Chief Justice, Sujit Narayan Prasad
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 238 of 2021
1. The Netarhat Vidyalaya Samiti, through its Chairman, Executive
Committee, NVS, Netarhat Vidyalaya Samiti, Human Resource
Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, HEC, MDI Building,
Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa.
2. The President (Adhyaksha), General Body, Netarhat Vidyalaya Samiti,
Human Resource Development Department, Government of Jharkhand,
HEC, MDI Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa.
3. The Principal-cum-Member Secretary, NVS, Netarhat Residential School,
Netarhat, Latehar, P.O. & P.S.-Netarhat.
... ... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
1. Sheetal Barnwal, D/O Shri Sunil Kumar Barnwal, R/O-Sabji Mandi, Ward
No. 11, P.O. & P.S. Salempur, District Deoria (Uttar Pradesh) 274509.
... ... Petitioner/Respondent No.1
2. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Human Resource
Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, at Project Building,
P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. The Director of Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Human
Resource Development Department, Jharkhand, HEC, MDI Building,
Dhurwa, Ranchi.
... ... Respondent No.2 & 3(Proforma
Respondent)
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Appellants : Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp. No.1 : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate
: Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Sunita Kumari, AC to Sr. SC -II
----------------------------
ORAL JUDGMENT
06/Dated: 22nd September, 2022
1. Defect pointed out by the office, at the request of the appellants, is ignored. I.A. No. 6532 of 2021:
2. This application has been filed for leave of this Court for accepting the Vakalatnama filed on behalf of respondent no.1.
[2]
3. Ms. Sunita Kumari, learned AC to Sr. SC-II is present on behalf of the State.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants does not raise any objection to this prayer.
5. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed. Respondent no.1 is permitted to appear in the matter.
I.A. No. 3806 of 2021:
6. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 32 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.
7. No counter to the delay condonation application has been filed.
8. Heard the parties.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statements made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant were prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time.
10. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 32 days in preferring this appeal, is hereby condoned.
11. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard at this stage for final disposal.
L.P.A. No. 238 of 2021:
12. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 14.06.2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 488 of 2018 whereby and whereunder, the order dated 13.10.2017 as contained in letter nos. 1879 and 1880, by which the [3] services of the writ petitioner has been terminated, has been quashed and set aside with a direction upon the respondents to reinstate the writ petitioner in service within the stipulated period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order along with all consequential benefits which shall be paid to her within the aforesaid period.
13. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition required to be enumerated, read as under:
The writ-petitioner was appointed as a counselor in the Netarhat Awasiya Vidyalaya following due recruitment process and joined on 10.04.2013 vide office order no. 634 dated 18.04.2013 and thereafter she gave her services to the school to the best of her abilities to the satisfaction of all concerned.
After completion of probation period of one year, the school administration made a recommendation for confirmation of her services vide Letter No. 1409 dated 01.09.2014. Pursuant to the same, the services of the writ-petitioner was confirmed by the Department of Human Resources, Govt. of Jharkhand on 20.05.2015, which was intimated to the writ-petitioner vide letter No. 197-A dated 20.05.2015. The School Authority also communicated to the writ-petitioner regarding confirmation of service vide its Letter No. 1294 dated 15.06.2015, issued under the signature of the Principal, Netarhat School. After successful completion of period of probation and getting the service confirmed, the writ-petitioner got allotment of a residential quarter vide letter No. 2719 dated 11.08.2016, which was to be shared with one of her colleagues from the school and for that there were certain guidelines in the allotment letter which were to be followed by the allottees.
[4]
It is further case of the writ-petitioner that all of a sudden, on the ground of some complaint, even without disclosing the name of the complainant and without supplying any complaint letter, the writ-petitioner was called by the Principal of the School in his Chamber after school hours and after closing the door, severely rebuked and misbehaved with the writ- petitioner in a very intolerable manner and started making baseless allegations for hours continuously, which was beyond the understanding of the writ-petitioner. On 09.10.2017, writ-petitioner was served with an office order vide letter No. 1851 dated 09.10.2017 whereby she was directed to move to Ranchi on 10.10.2017 by the School vehicle. Thereafter, the writ-petitioner was escorted by the Principal himself from the School restraining her in a confinement. The writ-petitioner was totally perplexed being a lady as she was not able to take a decision and she was also not able to understand what mistake she had committed for which she was being subjected to such an ill treatment by the school authorities.
On the next morning, when the writ-petitioner was brought to Ranchi she was directly taken to the Human Resources Department, Ranchi and without any prior information she was asked to appear before the Executive Meeting of the School, where she was handed over a questionnaire and asked to give para wise reply of the same. The writ- petitioner was totally confused so she requested for grant of some time for giving reply to the questionnaire, but the same was out rightly rejected and the Committee pressurized her to give reply to the questionnaire put before her, in a closed room. Left with no option, the writ-petitioner gave para wise reply to all the questionnaires as per her understanding and the copy of the said questionnaire was asked by the writ-petitioner. The same day, [5] writ-petitioner was also brought back to Netarhat School Campus and two days thereafter i.e. on 13.10.2017, decision of the Executive Committee issued vide Notification No. 1879 dated 13.10.2017 was communicated to her stating therein that the Executive Committee has unanimously decided that allegation leveled against her are proved to be correct and hence it is decided to terminate the services of the writ-petitioner.
Thereafter, without giving any further opportunity to the writ- petitioner, the Principal cum Member Secretary Netarhat Vidyalaya issued Letter No. 1880 dated 13.10.2017 terminating the services of the writ- petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, writ-petitioner made representation before the Principal of the said School, but no decision was taken. Being aggrieved with the same, a writ petition had been filed being W.P.(S) No. 488 of 2018 inter alia on the ground that the same has been passed without initiating a departmental proceeding as required under the applicable Rule. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, has quashed and set aside the impugned orders by directing the respondents to reinstate the writ-petitioner in service with all consequential benefits, which is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal.
14. Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-respondent has submitted that the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition by quashing and setting aside the order impugned has not considered about the seriousness of the nature of allegation and merely has gone into the violation of principles of natural justice. It has been submitted that there is no lacuna in issuing the letter of termination since the same has been decided to be taken after providing adequate opportunity of hearing and by [6] paying three months‟ salary as provided under the conduct rules but the said aspect of the matter has not been considered in the right perspective, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and hence, may be quashed and set aside.
15. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent and has perused the documents available on record as also the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.
16. The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that the writ petitioner was appointed in pursuance of an advertisement being Advertisement No. Net- Appointment-Regular-01/2012 to the post of teachers, medical officer and administrative officer as would appear from Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The writ-petitioner made application which having been taken into consideration, she had been called upon to participate in the interview. The writ petitioner was declared successful and was issued with the offer of appointment as contained in Letter No. 407 dated 15.03.2013 to be appointed as Counselor in the pay-scale of Rs.15,600-Rs.39,100 in grade pay of Rs.5400 by the Netarhat Awasiya Vidalaya Sameeti. The probation period was for a period of one year and on completion of satisfactory service of one year, her services was to be confirmed, however, if the services will not be found to be satisfactory, the services can be terminated.
It has further been stipulated in the offer of appointment that the pay scale of Rs.15,600-Rs.39,100 will be payable under the Appointment, Service Condition and Discipline Rules, 2011. The writ petitioner gave her joining on 10.04.2013 which was accepted as would appear from the office order dated 18.04.2013 appended as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. [7]
Subsequent thereto, the writ petitioner was confirmed in the service as would appear from the order dated 20.05.2015 appended as Annexure-7 to the writ petition and in terms thereof, separate order to that effect was issued on 15.06.2015 showing the date of appointment of the writ petitioner to be 10.04.2013 and date of confirmation in service to be 10.04.2014. Subsequent thereto, a residential accommodation was provided in the school premises being Quarter No. 08 vide Office Order dated 11.08.2016. The writ petitioner, while discharging her duties, a questionnaire was served upon her on 10.10.2017 referring therein certain allegations, i.e., one Raj Kumar Prasad was found to be living in the house which was allotted in favour of the writ petitioner.
The writ petitioner furnished due reply but the same having not been found to be satisfactory, three months‟ salary was given and thereafter, the order impugned for termination of the service of the writ petitioner was passed in view of paras-9 and 10 of the Recruitment, Service Condition and Disciplinary Rules, 2011. The same has been questioned by the writ petitioner by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 488 of 2018. The same has been allowed with a direction to reinstate the writ petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. Being aggrieved thereof, the instant intra-court appeal has been preferred.
17. The issue was raised on behalf of the writ-petitioner before the learned Single Judge about the violation of principles of natural justice since no regular departmental proceeding was initiated though the writ petitioner was a confirmed employee and governed by the Conduct Rules, 2011 which provides a detailed procedure for dealing with one or the other employees in order to take disciplinary action, i.e., a regular departmental [8] proceeding is required to be initiated in view of the provisions of Rule 24 thereof. However, the appellant-respondent has taken the plea of observance of principles of natural justice by making reference of paras-9 and 10 of the agreement appended as Appendix-1 to the Rules, 2011, wherein the disciplinary authority has been conferred with the power to take disciplinary action by terminating the service of the party no.1 by giving three months‟ notice in writing in case party no.1 is confirmed, or one month‟s notice during probation period or paying a sum equivalent to three months‟ or one month‟s salary which the party no.1 may then be drawing.
18. According to the appellant-respondent since the aforesaid condition stipulated under clause 10 of the appendix has been adhered to while passing the order, of termination, therefore, it is incorrect on the part of the writ petitioner to take the ground before the learned Single Judge that there is violation of principles of natural justice merely because the regular departmental proceeding has not been initiated.
19. This Court, on appreciation of the aforesaid rival submission, is required to answer the issue as to whether in the facts and circumstances, i.e., taking into consideration the nature of employment of the writ petitioner, the adherence to the procedure laid down under Rule 24 of the Rules, 2011 is required to be followed or the condition stipulated under clause 10 of the appendix-1 appended to the Rules, 2011 will be said to be sufficient compliance before taking decision of termination from service.
20. This Court, in order to consider the aforesaid fact, deems it fit and proper to refer the provision of Rules, 2011 as has been appended as Annexure-15 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the writ petitioner before the [9] writ court dated 19.12.2018 which has been issued by way of notification issued on 06.02.2012 by the Human Resource Development Department to be known as Recruitment, Service Condition and Disciplinary Rules, 2011. The aforesaid rule contains the comprehensive rule for process of appointment as under Chapter-II and conditions of service as under
Chapter-III.
21. It is evident from Rule 14 as under Chapter-III that it provides for termination of service due to abolition of posts etc. In case of abolition of post, the executive committee being the competent body, can terminate the service of a confirmed employee, due to reduction in the number section(s) or class(es) or discontinuance of a subject teaching by giving three months‟ notice in writing or three months‟ salary including all allowances or if an employee at any time after confirmation intends to resign, he/she shall give three months‟ prior notice in writing or pay three months‟ salary including all allowances to the Society. The aforesaid provision reads as under:
"14. Termination of Service due to Abolition of posts etc.
a) If an employee at any time after confirmation intends to resign, he/she shall give three months' prior notice in writing or pay three months' salary including all allowances to the Society.
b) The Executive committee shall also be competent to terminate the services of a confirmed employee in case of abolition of a post, due to reduction in the number of section(s) or class(es) or discontinuance of a subject of teaching by giving three months' notice in writing or three months' salary including all allowances."
22. It is, thus, evident that the provision as contained under Rule 14 confers power upon the Executive Committee to terminate the services of a confirmed employee only in case of abolition of post after giving three months‟ notice to the concerned employee or the employee can also resign only after giving three months‟ prior notice.
[10]
23. Disciplinary procedure starts from Rule 22 and it culminate in Rule 24 by laying down the procedure imposing minor and major penalties. The aforesaid chapter contains the provision of penalty as under Rule 24 wherein the punishment has been provided under two heads, i.e., procedure of imposing Minor Penalty as under Rule 24(b) and procedure for imposing Major Penalty as under Rule 24(c). It is evident from procedure for imposing major penalty that no punishment can be imposed by the disciplinary authority without framing definite charges on the basis of the allegation on which the inquiry is proposed to be held and a copy of the charges together with the statement of the allegation on which they are based are conveyed to the employee. He/she shall be required to submit, within a maximum period of two weeks, a written statement of his/her defense and also to state whether he/she desires to be heard in person to the enquiry officer. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the inquiry officer shall prepare a report of the inquiry containing therein findings on each of the charges together with the reasons thereof. The disciplinary authority shall consider the report of the inquiry and record its findings on each charge and if the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that any of the major penalties should be imposed it shall:-
i. Furnish to the employee a copy of the report of the inquiry officer. ii. Give to the employee a notice in writing stating the action proposed to be taken and calling upon him/her to submit representation as he/she may wish to make against the proposed action. iii. On receipt of the representation, if any, made by the employee, the disciplinary authority should communicate its tentative decision to impose the penalty to the Executive Committee for its approval. [11] iv. The imposition of the major penalty shall be made by disciplinary authority only after the receipt of the approval of the Executive Committee.
The aforesaid provisions are required to be referred herein, which read as under:
"Disciplinary Procedure
22. Suspension
a) The Executive committee may place an employee under suspension where i. disciplinary proceeding against him/her are contemplated or pending on the grounds but not limited to those mentioned below:-
he/she is charged with embezzlement.
or he/she is charged with cruelty towards student or any employee of the school.
or he/she is charged with misbehavior towards any parent, guardian, or employee of the School.
or he/she is charged with a breach any other code of conduct.
or a case against him/her in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial.
b) No order for suspension shall remain in force for more than six months unless the committee, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, directs the continuation of the suspension beyond the period of six months.
c) where the Principal intends to suspend any teacher or the employee, such infarction shall be communicated to the Sabhapati of the Executive Committee and no such suspension shall be made except without the latter's prior approval.
d) Principal may suspend an employee with immediate effect and without the prior approval of the Sabhapati of the Executive Committee if he/she is satisfied that such immediate suspension is necessary for reasons of gross misconduct within the meaning of the code of conduct or involves moral turpitude.
Provided no such suspension made without the approval of the Sabhapati of the Executive Committee will remain in force for more than a period of fifteen days of suspension unless the same has been approved by or before the expiry of said period.
[12]
e) An employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing authority:
i. with effect from the date of the detention, if he/she is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty eight hours.
ii. with effect from the date of his/her conviction if he/she is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired from service consequent to such conviction.
iii. the period of forty eight hours shall be computed from the commencement of detention of conviction, as the case may be, and for this purpose intermittent period of imprisonment or detention, if any, shall be taken into account.
f) where a penalty of dismissal or removal from service imposed upon an employee is set aside or rendered void, in consequence of or by a decision or a court of law, and disciplinary authority on consideration of circumstances of the case decides to hold further inquiry against such employee on the allegation on which the penalty of dismissal or removal was originally imposed, such an employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the Competent Authority from the date of original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further order.
Provided that no such further enquiry shall be ordered unless it is intended to meet a situation, where the court has passed an order purely on technical grounds without going into the merits of the case.
g) An employee of the Society against whom a criminal charge or proceeding for detention is pending may be placed under suspension during periods when he/she is not actually detained in custody or imprisoned if the charge made or proceeding taken against him is likely to embarrass him/her in the discharge of his/her duties or involves moral turpitude.
h) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made in these rules shall continue to remain in force until modified or revoked by the appropriate authority.
i) An order of suspension, made or deemed to have been made under these rules, may be modified or revoked by the Executive Committee at any time.
23. Subsistence Allowance An employee under suspension shall, during the said period, be entitled to the following payments, namely
a) A subsistence allowance as an amount equal to one half of the pay last drawn by him/her and in addition to such pay, dearness allowance be paid in the same manner as the salary.
b) Where the period of suspension is extended beyond three months, the Appointing Authority shall be competent to vary the amount of subsistence as follows:
i. the amount of subsistence allowance may be increased by a sum, not exceeding 50% of the subsistence allowance admissible for the period of first three months, if, in the opinion of the Appointing Authority recorded in writing, the period of suspension has been prolonged due to reason not directly attributable to the employee.[13]
ii. The amount of subsistence allowance may be reduced by a suitable amount not exceeding fifty percent of the subsistence admissible during the period of first three months, if in the opinion of the Appointing Authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged due to reasons, recorded in writing, directly attributable to the suspended employee.
iii. No payment of subsistence allowance shall be made unless the employee furnishes a certificate to the effect that he/she is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation.
24. Penalties
a) The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons including the breach of one or more provisions of the code of conduct, may be imposed upon an employee.
1. Minor penalties :
i. Censure ii. Recovery from pay, the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Society by the negligence or breach of orders.
iii. Withholding of increments(s) of pay.
2. Major penalties :
i. Dismissal ii. Removal from service.
b) Procedure of imposing Minor Penalty No order in case of a minor penalty shall be made except after informing the employee the proposal to take action against him/her and the allegation on which such action is proposed to be taken and after giving to the employee an opportunity to make any representation against the proposed action.
c) Procedure for imposing Major Penalty No order imposing on any employee any major penalty shall be made except after an inquiry is held as far as may be, in the manner specified below:
1. The disciplinary authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegation on which the inquiry is proposed to be held and a copy of the charges together with the statement of the allegation on which they are based are conveyed to the employee. He/she shall be required to submit, within a maximum period of two weeks, a written statement of his/her defense and also to state whether he/she desires to be heard in person to the enquiry officer.
2. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the inquiry officer shall prepare a report of the inquiry containing his findings on each of the charges together with the reasons thereof.
3. The disciplinary authority shall consider the report of the inquiry and record its findings on each charge and if the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that any of the major penalties should be imposed it shall:-
i. Furnish to the employee a copy of the report of the inquiry officer. ii. Give to the employee a notice in writing stating the action proposed to be taken and calling upon him/her to submit representation as he/she may wish to make against the proposed action.[14]
iii. On receipt of the representation, if any, made by the employee, the disciplinary authority should communicate its tentative decision to impose the penalty to the Executive Committee for its approval. iv. The imposition of the major penalty shall be made by disciplinary authority only after the receipt of the approval of the Executive Committee."
24. It is also relevant to refer herein the definition of „employee‟ as defined under Rule 2(c) which means employee of the Netarhat School.
25. It further appears from the Rules, 2011 as under the caption heading "Contract of Service" as under Appendix-I which is a format of an agreement wherein as under clauses 9 and 10, the process has been stipulated to deal with the employee who have been appointed by virtue of an agreement for their termination from service only after giving three months‟ notice in writing. For ready reference, the content of the agreement along with clauses 9 and 10 read as under:
"Appendix-1 Contract of Service ...
...
9. During the service under the AGREEMET, the Party no.1 will be liable to disciplinary action in accordance with the Rules and Regulations framed by the Society from time to time, for any act of insubordination, intemperance or other misconduct, or the commission of an act, which constitutes a criminal offence or of any breach or no-performance of duties or of any rules pertaining to the Code of Conduct of the Society.
10. The Committee of the school may terminate the service of the Party no.1 by giving three months' notice in writing, in case Party no.1 is confirmed, or one month's notice during probation period or paying a sum equivalent to 3 months' or one month's salary which the Party no.1 may be then drawing.
Similarly, if the Part no.1 wants to relinquish his job, he shall be required to give three months' notice in writing if he is confirmed or one month's notice in writing if he is under probation or deposit three month'/one month's salary, as the case may be, in lieu thereof."
26. So far as the fact of the given case is concerned, it is the admitted case of the appellant that the writ petitioner was a confirmed employee of the Netarhat School after the service having been confirmed vide order dated 20.05.2015, therefore, the status of writ petitioner became of a regular employee within the meaning of „employee‟ as defined under Rule 2(c). The moment the services of the writ petitioner has been confirmed she will [15] be treated to be governed by the Conduct Rules, 2011. The consequence will be that any punishment of the confirmed employee is required to be dealt with under procedure laid down under the provision of Rule 24 thereof which provides detailed process to impose major penalty, i.e., by framing a definite charge, providing an opportunity to the delinquent to defence the charge, the inquiry officer is to be appointed, the employee is to participate in the inquiry and the inquiry officer is to give a specific finding which is to be forwarded with the disciplinary authority and thereby, the disciplinary authority will provide an opportunity to file representation against the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and if the disciplinary authority is not satisfied with the reply, the punishment as prescribed under the list of punishment is required to be imposed upon the concerned employee.
27. While, on the other hand, the submission has also been made to take care of such employee who have been appointed under the contract, i.e., for the specific tenure in which format of agreement has been appended as Appendix-1 which contains the process to terminate such contractual employee by giving three months‟ notice a would appear from clause 10 thereof.
28. The admitted fact in this case is that no memorandum of charge said to have been framed against the writ petitioner even though the writ petitioner was a confirmed employee of the appellant-respondent rather the impugned order of termination from service has been passed by giving three months‟ salary in view of the condition as contained under clause 10 of Appendix-1 of the agreement appended to the Rules, 2011 which admittedly is applicable for the contractual employee.
[16]
29. The position of law is well settled that if any procedure has been laid down under the rule, the decision is to be taken strictly in adherence thereto and there cannot be any deviation as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer and Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 625 wherein at paragraph-10, it has been observed which reads as under:
"10. Where a particular mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no impediment in adopting the procedure, the deviation to act in different manner which does not disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable itself shall be labelled as arbitrary. Every State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason is per se arbitrary."
30. It is also well settled position of law that the punishment which is not prescribed in the list of punishments cannot be imposed by the disciplinary authority as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2012) 5 SCC 242.
31. Here, in the instant case, the writ petitioner was terminated from service even though she was a confirmed employee of the appellant-respondent. While no punishment has been provided under the list of punishment in the head „Major Penalty‟ to the effect to terminate the services of the employee rather the punishment of dismissal is there.
32. The facts since admitted by the appellant-respondent that the procedure as laid down under Rule 24 by not initiating a regular departmental proceeding but the order of termination has been passed and that is the ground taken by the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge and while appreciating the same the learned Single Judge has quashed the order of termination on the ground that no such decision ought to have been taken by the appellant-respondent without resorting to the procedure laid down under the applicable rule, i.e., Rule 24 of Rules, 2011. [17]
33. This Court, therefore, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, is of the view that since the writ petitioner was a confirmed employee and no adherence has been given by resorting to the regular departmental proceeding as provided under Rule 24 of the Rules, 2011, the applicable conduct rule rather has terminated the service of the writ petitioner by giving three months‟ salary even though there was no punishment prescribed under the list of punishment to terminate the services of a confirmed employee.
34. This Court, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed.
35. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saurabh /A.F.R.