The Rajasthan High Court overturned a State Government order that terminated a Physical Education Teacher (PET) due to an alleged forged sports certificate, citing a lack of notice and an absence of an inquiry.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, a single judge on the bench, made the following observation:
"The order was clearly stigmatic, leading to the petitioner's termination. Such action couldn't be taken without affording a proper opportunity for defense and conducting a formal departmental inquiry. Employers cannot arbitrarily hire or fire employees, even when allegations of misconduct exist. Services cannot be abruptly terminated on grounds of misconduct without following the due process and adhering to the principles of natural justice."
The petitioner's case was that he had applied for the position of Physical Education Teacher Grade-II in response to a 1998 advertisement. The petitioner's counsel argued that the respondents had not recognized the petitioner's degree as valid for the advertised position. However, in a previous writ petition filed by the petitioner, the Rajasthan High Court, in a November 18, 2005 order, instructed the respondents to reevaluate the petitioner's merit, consider the bonus marks from the State-level certificate, and potentially appoint the petitioner if found to be in merit.
Subsequently, on October 31, 2006, the petitioner received an appointment after the verification of the documents and sports certificate submitted by him.
Nonetheless, on February 14, 2007, the respondents terminated the petitioner's service, alleging that the documents and sports certificate provided were forged and fabricated. However, the dismissal order from February 14, 2007, was later rescinded by the respondents in an order dated May 18, 2007, with the condition that a separate inquiry against the petitioner would be conducted.
During this time, an FIR was filed against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner's counsel argued that the respondents once again terminated the petitioner's service on July 11, 2007, without issuing any notice or conducting an inquiry as per the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958. They cited the reason for dismissal as the alleged forgery and fabrication of the petitioner's sports certificate.
It was also argued that in the aforementioned criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted of all charges by the Trial Court in a judgment dated August 26, 2021. The contention was that the dismissal order against the petitioner was driven by malicious intent.
In contrast, the counsel representing the state respondents argued that the petitioner had obtained the appointment using fraudulent and fabricated documents. When this was investigated by the competent authority, it was determined that the petitioner did not possess a genuine sports certificate.
It was also stated that in the course of the inquiry, the petitioner had submitted a written statement on January 08, 2007, in which he admitted that he had never taken part in a State-level sports competition.
The Court emphasized that when decisions are made affecting an individual, it is the duty of the authority to conduct a fair and impartial judicial hearing, providing the person with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
"Making a decision that impacts an individual without affording them an opportunity to be heard would be considered a violation of the principles of natural justice. To uphold the safeguards outlined in Article 311 of the Constitution, 'reasonable opportunity' must be interpreted as a genuine and sufficient chance, not a mere formality. It is an established legal principle that an order of dismissal from service, which denies the person a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves, in disregard of the protection granted by Article 311(2) of the Constitution, is void and holds no legal validity."
The Court pointed out that the petitioner was not given any notice or charge sheet, nor were any documents provided to him to allow him to explain the alleged forgery and fabrication of the sports certificates he had submitted.
"It is worth noting that prior to issuing the contested dismissal order, the respondents did not request an explanation from the petitioner, provide a notice of the charge sheet, or conduct any inquiry."
The Court stated, "No opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to rebut the allegations against him through an inquiry, and no request for an explanation or charge sheet was initiated."
TAGS: Court's Highlighted Points Notice and Charge Sheet Absence Lack of Opportunity Impugned Dismissal Order Allegations Rebuttal Opportunity
