Shri Suresh Kumar vs State of Goa and Others

Anil Kumar, J.—The petitioner has impugned the order dated 4th April, 1997 passed by respondent No. 3 terminating the services of the petitioner under proviso to Sub rule 1 of rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rule, 1965 and holding that the petitioner shall be entitled to a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services, or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.

Brief facts to comprehend the controversies between the parties are that the petitioner had been appointed as Safaiwala since 1982 at Goa Sadan, New Delhi. The petitioner contended that he is working since 1982 though he was issued an appointment letter only on 1st February, 1984 formally appointing him against the permanent post created by order dated 25th September, 1981.

The petitioner asserted that on account of mis-management and carelessness of the concerned officials including respondent No. 3 at Goa Sadan, the services of the canteen had deteriorated substantially causing serious hardships to the petitioner and other employees entailing complaints being made by the petitioner and other employees against the mis-management. In one of such complaints in which the petitioner was also a signatory, a request was made to respondent No. 2, Resident Commissioner, to handover the canteen to an appropriate person. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of taking corrective measures to improve the services in the canteen, the signatories of the letter dated 1st March, 1992 were threatened with dismissal. The petitioner also pleaded that he was humiliated by one section of Goa Sadan official on one pretext or the other regularly. According to the petitioner, the officials of the Goa Sadan were unhappy because of the outspoken nature of the petitioner and his courage to speak against the mis-management and mis-conduct of officials at Goa Sadan, New Delhi.

In order to get rid of petitioner, an allegation of stealing precious articles from the office were made against him, however, the same could not be established as it was false to the knowledge of the conspiring officials. The petitioner asserted that on account of petitioner raising voice against the irregularities and mis-management, the attitude of the officials at Goa Sadan was discriminatory against him and respondent No. 3, the Resident Commissioner, was trying to find excuses and occasion to throw him out. The petitioner made a specific allegation against the respondent No. 3 that he has hatred towards persons belonging to lower caste and those who had been doing menial jobs. The petitioner also alleged that the Respondent No. 3 was in the habit of abusing the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was also unhappy with the petitioner as he was not able to do menial jobs at the house of the respondent No. 3 though he was not liable to do the personal work of the respondent No. 3.

According to the petitioner, in furtherance of the attempt of the respondents to throw out the petitioner, they cooked up false allegation against the petitioner that under the influence of liquor while on duty, he had mis-behave with the staff. He also contended that a fabricated report of inquiry was procured which was conducted without giving a due opportunity and against the principles of natural justice and by order dated 3rd January, 1996, the petitioner was dismissed from the services under Rule 15(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.

An appeal was filed by the petitioner against the order of his dismissal dated 3.1.1996 pursuant to alleged fabricated inquiry. His appeal was also much delayed and which was disposed of only pursuant to a writ petition being CWP No. 257 of 1997 filed by the petitioner in which by order dated 11th February, 1997, the respondent No. 1 was directed to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner within six weeks from the date of the order.

Pursuant to the directions of this Court in CWP No. 257 of 1997 by order dated 11th February, 1997, the appellate authority decided the appeal of the petitioner by order dated 25th March, 1997 and set aside the decision of the disciplinary authority dismissing the petitioner on the ground of misbehaving with the staff of the office under the influence of liquor, on the ground that there had been gross violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play and consequently the penalty of dismissal of the petitioner was set aside and inquiry proceeding held against the petitioner was also held to be vitiated. The respondents were, however, given liberty to conduct an inquiry de novo by following appropriate procedure and giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

After order dated 25th March, 1997 of the Appellate authority setting aside the inquiry proceeding and the order of dismissal of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner reported for duty on 1st April, 1997, however, he was taken on duty reluctantly. The respondent No. 3 was alleged to be unhappy with the reinstatement of the petitioner and he had even told the petitioner as to how he could dare to allege malafide against him in the appeal which was filed before the Appellate authority. The petitioner, however, continued the work till 4th April, 1997 and after lunch, according to the petitioner, a Peon, Raghunath, came with the letter dated 4th April, 1997 terminating the services of the petitioner. When petitioner tried to attend the duty on 5th April, 1997 he was not allowed to attend and according to him his attempt to meet the respondent No. 3 also failed.

The petitioner contended that though the letter dated 4th April, 1997 stipulated about pay and allowance for the notice period, the petitioner was not paid any such amount at that time or till the filing of the writ petition.

The petitioner stated that he submitted a representation dated 19th May, 1997 against the order of termination dated 4th April, 1997, however, no order had been passed on his representation. According to the petitioner, the order of termination dated 4th April, 1997 is penal and founded on the allegation of misconduct and the petitioner could not be dismissed without an appropriate inquiry being conducted and the charges of mis-conduct being proved during such an inquiry. The petitioner contended that it is apparent that he has been dismissed on account of alleged charges which were made against him, on the basis of which the disciplinary authority has dismissed him from his services, however, in appeal the order was set aside and the respondent No. 2 & 3 were directed to conduct de novo inquiry. The petitioner''s plea is that the order of termination dated 4th April, 1997 is vocative of the principles of natural justice as no inquiry was conducted nor any reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner though the order is punitive in nature and founded on the allegation of mis-conduct. The plea of the petitioner is that under Rule 15(4) of the CCS (CCA) rules, the respondent No. 3 has not been given the power or authority, to pass the order of dismissal without conducting the inquiry for the alleged misconduct. Petitioner categorically contended that his dismissal is not termination implicate but is on account of misconduct alleged by the respondents against him.

The writ petition is contested by respondents and the affidavit of Shri B.B. (sic)