Upendra Nath Verma Son Of Late Rambali ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 24 April, 2023
32. So far as the judgement relied upon by the petitioner reported in
(2021) SCC OnLine Jhar 178 (Paritosh Kumar Rai Vs. Union of
India) is concerned, the same does not apply to the facts and
circumstances of this case. In the said case the departmental
proceeding was initiated by issuing a charge-sheet and without taking
it to a logical end the order of termination was passed only on the
basis of Vigilance enquiry. Under the facts of the said case, this Court
was of the view that the allegation of fraud which was disputed by the
petitioner right from beginning was required to be proved in course of
departmental proceedings which was already initiated. Consequently,
the order of termination was set-aside and the petitioner of the said
case was reinstated only for the purposes of conducting the
departmental proceedings and the management was given the liberty
to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry by placing the petitioner
under suspension in terms of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble
12
Supreme Court, in the judgement reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 and
also (2004) 2 SCC 105 with an observation that that the
consequential relief will depend upon the outcome of the disciplinary
enquiry. In the present case, no departmental proceedings have been
instituted and the petitioner has been terminated after following the
principles of natural justice by holding that his appointment was void
ab inito. This court is of the considered view that once the
appointment has been found to be void ab initio, Article 311 of the
Constitution of India will have no application and no regular
departmental proceedings were required to terminate the petitioner.
Admittedly, no departmental proceedings can be initiated now as the
petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation.