9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to termination order based on lack of reason provided by punishing authority violating natural justice principles. Analysis: The appellant, a Bus Conductor, challenged the termination of his service due to failure of the punishing authority to provide a reason for the order, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. A charge of not issuing tickets to passengers was leveled against the appellant, leading to a disciplinary proceeding. The Enquiry Officer found the charge proved, and the punishing authority terminated the appellant's service based on this finding. The appellant contended that the termination order was illegal due to the absence of reasons, contrary to natural justice principles. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, stating that it lacked jurisdiction. On appeal, the Additional District Judge held the Civil Court had jurisdiction but deemed the order invalid for lacking reasons, thus allowing the appeal and setting aside the termination order. The State of Haryana appealed to the High Court, which affirmed the Civil Court's jurisdiction but reversed the decision on the validity of the termination order, deeming it legal. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court's judgment. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that the punishing authority did not apply their mind before issuing the order, as evidenced by the absence of reasons. However, the High Court noted that the punishing authority's order was detailed, spanning seven pages, outlining the charge, witness depositions, Enquiry Officer's findings, and appellant's explanation. The punishing authority explicitly stated the basis for terminating the service, indicating a thorough consideration of the case. The Supreme Court found that the punishing authority had indeed applied their mind, as evidenced by the detailed order and reliance on the Enquiry Officer's report and findings. The Court held that agreeing with the Enquiry Officer's findings and reasons was sufficient, negating the need for redundant discussion. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit. However, considering the appellant's circumstances, the Court suggested re-employment due to being a first-time offender with dependents and no other livelihood.
|
