9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Dismissal of a temporary employee without following proper procedure under Article 311 of the Constitution. Analysis: The petitioner was appointed as an Additional Rehabilitation Officer on a temporary basis. Serious charges of corruption and negligence were brought against him, leading to his suspension and subsequent dismissal. The District Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner based on the Deputy Financial Adviser's report, recommending dismissal. However, the subsequent enquiry was conducted confidentially without providing the petitioner with an opportunity to defend himself or access the report. The order of dismissal did not specify the particular charges proven against the petitioner, violating the principles of natural justice. Under Article 311 of the Constitution, all civil servants, whether permanent or temporary, are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to show cause before any adverse action is taken against them. The court emphasized that if the government chooses to dismiss an employee based on serious charges, the constitutional safeguards must be followed. In this case, the confidential enquiry and lack of specific details in the dismissal order failed to provide the petitioner with a fair chance to defend himself, rendering the dismissal unlawful. The court cited precedents and legal principles to establish that the petitioner's rights under Article 311 were violated. It was highlighted that the enquiry process should involve two stages - one for investigating charges and another for determining appropriate punishment, with the employee having the right to defend against both. Since the petitioner was not given access to the enquiry report or provided with specific details of the charges proven against him, the court held the dismissal order invalid. In conclusion, the court found the dismissal order dated 9-1-1953 to be unsupported due to the procedural irregularities and lack of adherence to constitutional safeguards. The respondents were directed to rescind the order and refrain from implementing it. However, the court did not address the petitioner's suspension, leaving it pending further action by the respondents in compliance with the court's observations. No costs were awarded in this matter.
|
