Ramgarh v. District
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 549 of 2022 Santvana Sharan, aged about 53 years, W/o Dr. Sudhir Arya, R/o Patratu Basti, Ramgarh Cantt., P.O. – Ramgarh Cantt., P.S. – Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. Petitioner … … 1. President, Cantonment Board, P.O. – Ramgarh Cantt., P.S. – Ramgarh, Versus District – Ramgarh. 2. General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Central Command, Lucknow, P.O. & P.S.- Lucknow, District – Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh). 3. Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Cantonment Board, P.O. – Ramgarh Cantt., P.S. – Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. 4. Cantonment Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, P.O. – Ramgarh Cantt., P.S. – Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh. … … Respondents For the Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
--- CORAM :HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK --- : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate --- For the Respondents 18/20th December 2024 1. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the decisions dated 23.12.2021 and 4.1.2022, by which the petitioner has been terminated from service of respondent- Cantonment Board, Ramgarh and her name from the establishment of Cantonment Fund Services has been struck off. 3. The petitioner was appointed on 18.05.1998 on the post of Lady Medical Officer in Cantonment Board, Ramgarh Cantt. With some allegation of doing private practice, initially the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of withholding of one increment. However, the same was challenged in W.P.(S) No. 4830 of 2001,
Decision
which was disposed of on 28.09.2001 and in the light of observations made in the said order, one increment was rescinded. It is further case of the petitioner that on 26.10.2021, when CEO visited the hospital, the petitioner was found absent. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 06.12.2021 and the petitioner duly replied the same on 20.12.2021 stating that at that point of time, she was in the office of 1 Civil Surgeon for discussing on the issues of Cantonment General Hospital. However, the respondent-Board decided to terminate the service of the petitioner by order dated 23.12.2021 and finally by reasoned order dated 4.1.2022, the service of the petitioner was terminated under Rule 8(1)(d) of Cantonment Board Employees Services Rules, 2021 for violation of clause 3 (c) of the appointment letter dated 18.5.1998. 4. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has thrown challenge to the order of termination mainly on the grounds that without initiation and without conducting a departmental proceeding, the petitioner was terminated from service and the provisions of law under which the termination order has been issued is not attracted in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that from perusal of clause-3A of the appointment letter itself, it appears that the service conditions of the petitioner shall be governed by Cantt. Fund Servants Rules, 1937, whereas, the impugned termination order has been issued under the provisions of Rule 8(1)(d) of the Cantonment Board Employees Service Rules, 2021. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not appointed on contract basis, rather, she was a permanent employee and if there was any allegation of misconduct, it was open for the respondents to initiate a regular departmental proceeding, after drawing charges against the petitioner under Rule 11 of the Cantonment Board Employees Service Rules, 2021. Learned counsel submits that in absence of the same, the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law. 5. Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents very fairly submits that admittedly no departmental proceeding was ever initiated against the petitioner, rather, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after seeking his reply which was found to be unsatisfactory, termination order has been issued. He further submits that merely quoting a wrong provision of law, the petitioner cannot be absolved from the charges. 2 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire materials on record. Before delving deep into merit of the case, it would be apposite to quote the terms and conditions enunciated in appointment letter of the petitioner, as also the provisions of Rule 8(1)(d) of the Cantonment Board Employees Service Rules, 2021. Terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment letter are as follows:- “3. The conditions of your service in the Cantonment Board shall be as under:- A. Your services shall be government by the Cantt. Fund Servants Rules, 1937. B. You will be provided accommodation as per existing rules. C. You are being appointed on non-practicing post. D. Please bring with you copies of all of your certificates / testimonials along with the original at the time of joining the post. E. Certificate of physical fitness for employment in public service. F. Please note that no TA/DA shall be paid for joining the post. G. Please also complete the enclosed form and submit the same at the time of joining.” Rule 8 of the Cantonment Board Employees Service Rules, 2021 is quoted herein below:- “8. (1) The Board or the officer appointing an employee may discharge such employee- (a) during or at the end of his period of probation; (b) On his being declared by a medical officer approved by the Board to be medically unfit for further service; (c) at any time after he has attained the age of fifty-five years or has completed thirty years qualified service; subject to such directions as the Central Government may issue from time to time in this regard; (d) in accordance with the terms of a written contract, if any, between such employee and the Board; or (e) in pursuance of a reduction or revision of establishment and not otherwise.” 7. From perusal of the terms of appointment letter, vis-à-vis Rule 8 of the Cantonment Board Employees Service Rules, it appears that admittedly the respondents have applied a wrong provision for termination of the petitioner. However, it is an admitted fact and settled principle of law that merely because a 3 wrong provision, the employee cannot be absolved from the charges. 8. However, the fact remains that in the present case, no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. No enquiry officer was ever appointed and no enquiry report was submitted enquiring the actual truth of the allegation levelled against the petitioner. No second show cause notice was issued to rebut the petitioner before inflicting any punishment. In the instant case, merely a show cause notice was issued and the petitioner was inflicted with capital punishment in service jurisprudence. The respondents have tried to unsettle the settled procedure of departmental proceeding by inflicting the major punishment. Hence, in no way, the procedure adopted by the respondents is sustainable in law and the same is not countenanced. 9. As a sequitur to the above rules, regulations and guidelines, the impugned orders dated 23.12.2021 (Annexure-16) and 04.01.2022 (Annexure-17) are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the matter is remitted back to the respondents to proceed afresh after giving ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, a regular departmental proceeding be initiated by a Competent Authority as per the rules. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Aditi (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) 4