JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT v. Bhanwarilal

The said order was challenged by the petitioner alleging that said innocuous order was passed before completion of probation period and was founded on the alleged misconduct attributed to the petitioner. The order being punitive in nature has been made in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution without holding any enquiry into the alleged misconduct and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to defend him against the misconduct attributed to him. Therefore, the impugned order dated 16.7.1990 is ultra vires. Along with the petition, the petitioner submitted two documents, one relieving the petitioner from training center allegedly on the ground that he was found indulged in brawl by the Instructor of the Training 3 Institute which amounted to indiscipline and he was asked to move to the Battalian with which the petitioner- respondent was attached for taking appropriate action. Along with the petitioner another person Hansraj RSI of District Udaipur was also involved. This document is on record. Along with this recommendation, a wireless dt.19.7.1990 (Annex.4) has been produced recommending to place the officer under suspension and holding a joint enquiry against both the delinquent officers. The wireless message also reveals a preliminary enquiry along with the statement recorded were also dispatched to be considered by the higher authorities. The wireless message was with reference to earlier communication dt.23.6.1990 which has also been produced before us during the course of hearing by the appellant. Said communication is revealing and reads as under:- “क(cid:2)र(cid:2)(cid:4)लर पध(cid:2)न(cid:2)च(cid:2)र(cid:4), र(cid:2)जस(cid:14)(cid:2)न प(cid:16)ललस पल(cid:19)कण क(cid:22) न(cid:24), ज(cid:25)धप(cid:16)र कम(cid:2)(cid:28)क: 1257-61 मह(cid:2)लनर कक प(cid:16)ललस (पल(cid:19)कण) र(cid:2)जस(cid:14)(cid:2)न, जरप(cid:16)र व"षर: द(cid:30)न(cid:2)(cid:28)क: 23-6-90 प(cid:2)रम%&क ज(cid:2)’च व"रद पल(cid:2)टन कम(cid:2)ण-र र 4 बन"(cid:2)र ल(cid:2)ल, प(cid:14)म बट(cid:2)ललरन आरएस1,ज(cid:25)धप(cid:16)र " आर एस आई श1 ह(cid:28)सर(cid:2)ज मजल(cid:2) उ(cid:30)रप(cid:16)र। पस(cid:28)ग: इस क(cid:2)र(cid:2)(cid:4)लर क(cid:2) व"त(cid:28)त(cid:16) स(cid:28)(cid:30)(cid:22)(cid:19) कम(cid:2)(cid:28)क: 626-31 द(cid:30)न(cid:2)(cid:28)क : 11-6- 90 ए"(cid:28) पल(cid:19)कण लन(cid:30)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:2)लर क(cid:2) व"त(cid:28)त(cid:16) स(cid:28)(cid:30)(cid:22)(cid:19) कम(cid:2)(cid:28)क: 3397 द(cid:30)न(cid:2)(cid:28)क 21-6-90 मह(cid:25)(cid:30)र, र(cid:2)जस(cid:14)(cid:2)न प(cid:16)ललस पल(cid:19)कण क(cid:22) न(cid:24), ज(cid:25)धप(cid:16)र म9 ":पनस क(cid:25)स(cid:4) ब:च न(cid:28)0 2/90 म9 पल(cid:19)कण(cid:2)ध1न अलधक(cid:2)र पल(cid:19)कण(cid:2)(cid:14)< प1स1 श1 बन"(cid:2)र ल(cid:2)ल " आर एस आई र ह(cid:28)सर(cid:2)ज द(cid:30)न(cid:2)(cid:28)क 10-6-90 क(cid:25) वबन(cid:2) सकम अलधक(cid:2)र क= स"1क> लत प(cid:2)प दकर(cid:22) स"(cid:22)चA(cid:2) स(cid:22) पल(cid:19)कण स(cid:28)स(cid:14)(cid:2)न क(cid:25) A(cid:25)डन(cid:22), पल(cid:19)कणक(cid:2)ल म9 र(cid:2)जर क(cid:2)र(cid:4) पर रहत(cid:22) ह(cid:16)ए (cid:19)र(cid:2)ब प1न(cid:22), पल(cid:19)कण स(cid:28)स(cid:14)(cid:2)न म9 अज(cid:2)त मदहल(cid:2) क(cid:25) ल(cid:2)न(cid:22), स(cid:28)तर डरFट पर त:न(cid:2)त ररककट क(cid:2)(cid:28)सट(cid:22)बल क(cid:22) (cid:14)पपड म(cid:2)रन(cid:22) ए"(cid:28) पल(cid:19)कक सट(cid:2)फ " स(cid:28)स(cid:14)(cid:2)न क(cid:22) अलधक(cid:2)रररJ क(cid:22) स(cid:2)(cid:14) ग(cid:2)ल1-गलKच " (cid:30)(cid:16)"र(cid:4)"ह(cid:2)र करन(cid:22) क(cid:2) म(cid:2)मल(cid:2) पक(cid:2)(cid:19) म9 आन(cid:22) पर उक (cid:30)(cid:25)नJ अलधक(cid:2)रररJ क(cid:25) पल(cid:19)कण स(cid:22) अलग करत(cid:22) ह(cid:16)ए इस स(cid:28)स(cid:14)(cid:2)न स(cid:22) द(cid:30)न(cid:2)(cid:28)क: 11-6-90 क(cid:25) मधर(cid:2)नह पश च(cid:2)त स(cid:28)बलधत मजल(cid:2) रFलनट क(cid:22) ललए र"(cid:2)नग1 (cid:30) गई त(cid:14)(cid:2) उनक(cid:22) व"रद उक आर(cid:25)पJ क= सतरत(cid:2) क= ज(cid:2)’च करन(cid:22) क(cid:22) ललए स(cid:28)स(cid:14)(cid:2)न क(cid:22) कम(cid:2)न-(cid:22)नट क(cid:25) आ(cid:30)(cid:22)(cid:19) द(cid:30)र(cid:2) गर(cid:2)। स(cid:28)स(cid:14)(cid:2)न क(cid:22) कम(cid:2)न-(cid:22)नट श1 कन(cid:4)ल बह(cid:2)(cid:30)(cid:16)रलस(cid:28)ह कपFर द(cid:2)र(cid:2) उक (cid:30)(cid:25)नJ अलधक(cid:2)रररJ क(cid:22) व"रद (cid:30)(cid:16)र(cid:2)चरण क(cid:22) आर(cid:25)पJ क= व"सत>त ज(cid:2)’च कर, ज(cid:2)’च ररप(cid:25)ट(cid:4) क(cid:2)र(cid:2)(cid:4)लर म9 प(cid:22)(cid:19) क= गई मजसम9 उक (cid:30)(cid:25)नJ अलधक(cid:2)रररJ श1 बन"(cid:2)र ल(cid:2)ल प1स1 " श1 ह(cid:28)सर(cid:2)ज, आरएसआई क(cid:25) उनक(cid:22) व"रद लग(cid:2)र(cid:22) गर(cid:22) आर(cid:25)पJ क(cid:22) ललए (cid:30)(cid:25)ष1 म(cid:2)न(cid:2) ह:। पल(cid:19)कण स(cid:28)स(cid:14)(cid:2)न म9 पल(cid:19)कण(cid:2)ध1न रहत(cid:22) ह(cid:16)ए अलधक(cid:2)र सतर क(cid:22) पल(cid:19)कणल(cid:14)(cid:4)रJ द(cid:2)र(cid:2) इस पक(cid:2)र क(cid:22) (cid:30)(cid:16)र(cid:2)चरण क= कतई अप(cid:22)क(cid:2) नह (cid:28) क= ज(cid:2) सकत1 । इन अलधक(cid:2)रररJ द(cid:2)र(cid:2) दकर(cid:22) गर(cid:22) क> तर और अन(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:2)सनह नत(cid:2) क(cid:22) धर(cid:25)तक हR ए"(cid:28) (cid:30)ण-न1र ह:। अतए" ज(cid:2)(cid:28)च अलधक(cid:2)र द(cid:2)र(cid:2) प(cid:22)वषत प(cid:2)(cid:14)लमक ज(cid:2)(cid:28)च ररप(cid:25)ट(cid:4) मर बर(cid:2)न ए"(cid:28) र(cid:25)जन(cid:2)मच(cid:2) आम क= (cid:30)(cid:25)हर पलतर(cid:2)(cid:28) स(cid:28)लगन प(cid:22)वषत करत(cid:22) ह(cid:16)ए अन(cid:16)र(cid:25)ध ह: दक (cid:30)(cid:25)ष1 अलधक(cid:2)रररJ क(cid:22) व"रद व"&(cid:2)ग1र क(cid:2)र(cid:4)"(cid:2)ह कर उनह9 5 कठ(cid:25)र (cid:30)ण- द(cid:30)र(cid:2) ज(cid:2)र। &"(cid:30) र पध(cid:2)न(cid:2)च(cid:2)र(cid:4) (cid:4)क(cid:2)न(cid:16)स(cid:2)र स(cid:28)लगन: उपर(cid:16) पलतललप1: 1- प(cid:16)ललस उप मह(cid:2)लनर कक, आरएस1 रRज, जरप(cid:16)र 2- प(cid:16)ललस उप मह(cid:2)लनर कक, उ(cid:30)रप(cid:16)र रRज, उ(cid:30)रप(cid:16)र 3- मजल(cid:2) प(cid:16)ललस अध1कक, उ(cid:30)रप(cid:16)र 4- कम(cid:2)न-(cid:22)नट, प(cid:14)म बट(cid:2)ललरन आरएस1, ज(cid:25)धप(cid:16)र क(cid:25) मर प(cid:2)(cid:14)लमक ज(cid:2)’च पलत"(cid:22)(cid:30)न ररप(cid:25)ट(cid:4), बर(cid:2)न ए"(cid:28) र(cid:25)जन(cid:2)मच(cid:2) आम क= एक एक पलत क(cid:22) स(cid:2)(cid:14) स(cid:28)लगन अलUम आ"शरक क(cid:2)र(cid:4)"(cid:2)ह ह(cid:22)त(cid:16) प(cid:22)वषत । एस.- . पध(cid:2)न(cid:2)च(cid:2)र(cid:4), ज(cid:25)धप(cid:16)र र(cid:2)जस(cid:14)(cid:2)न प(cid:16)ललस पल(cid:19)कण क(cid:22) न(cid:24), स(cid:28)लगन: 79 "क(cid:4) " The aforesaid communication was followed with the impugned order dt.16.7.1990 discharging the petitioner from service though subsequent wireless message dt.19.7.1990 suggest that respondents were already contemplating to hold an departmental enquiry to prove misconduct and punish the employee. In reply to the writ petition, it was alleged that the petitioner consumed liquor on 10.6.1990 and brought a woman with him which is prohibited in the 6 campus and on being resisted from such conduct, he started quarreling with the instructor of the Institute and exhibited indisciplined behaviour. All these incidents happened while petitioner was under probation. Hence the action taken against him is proper. It was further stated in para 7 of the reply that “the misconduct on the part of the petitioner as stated alone ( or stood alone) and the impugned order of discharge was passed in the middle of the probation period and this act of in discipline and the cause for the order cannot be ignored.” It was reiterated in para 8 of the reply that “the order so passed by the respondent has been made on screening the preliminary enquiry as the act of misconduct and the cause of the order but for that incident if it would not have been passed”. It was also admitted that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and the 7 pleadings of the parties, the learned Single Judge held the impugned order of discharge to be in fact punitive and admittedly when no enquiry had been conducted before passing such order, the order was found to be in violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and in breach of principle of natural justice and was quashed. However, the appellants-non-petitioners were left free to hold a proper inquiry before considering the issue of confirmation of the respondent-petitioner and pass appropriate order on the out come of such enquiry. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is well settled that for unsatisfactory conduct during the period of probation, if an incumbent is discharged from service, such action is not considered to be punitive and cannot be treated in violation of Article 311(2). However, it is also well settled that the phraseology of the order is not decisive and conclusive 8 of nature of the order. The principle is also well settled that where the alleged misconduct or incident this is foundation of the order though it is couched as an order of discharge the order cannot but be punitive and unless it confers to adherence of principles of natural justice and is passed after holding an enquiry in accordance with law in terms and Article 311(2) the order cannot withstand the scrutiny of judicial review. Merely because the person concerned is in the probation period it does not confer authority upon the employer to punish him by terminating the service founded on proved misconduct. On the other hand, if the alleged conduct of the petitioner is not the foundation of the order, but is merely a motive for making an order, it may not be a punitive action. In the present case, from the material placed on record and pleadings of the parties it is apparent that the impugned order of discharge dated 16.7.1990 is the foundation of discharge order providing a casual nexus 9 between the finding of alleged misconduct in the preliminary enquiry against the petitioner held without notice to him and the order of discharge. In fact, it has been admitted by the respondent that the petitioner's services would not have been terminated. The pleading to that effect, we have already noticed above. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the alleged incident was not the foundation but merely a motive for passing the order of discharge, cannot be accepted. It will be apposite here to notice the decision of the Supreme Court in Anoop Jaiswal Vs. Government of India & Anr. AIR 1984 SC 636 which arose in somewhat identical circumstances. The appellant before the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case had been selected by the Union Public Service Commission for appointment in the Indian Police Service and was undergoing training at the National Police Academy along with other probationaries. 10 On the relevant date, the probationers were not present at the shifted venue of parade and when message was sent to the probationers that they were to go to the place of training they did not reach in time at the shifted venue. The delay on the part of probationers to reach the training venue was considered to be an incident which called for an enquiry. An explanation was called from all the probationers. The appellant was considered to be ring leader, who was responsible for the delay and after calling explanation from the appellant, he was discharged from the service during the probation period. The Court said after referring to catena of earlier decisions of the Supreme and particularly referring to the case of Samsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1974 SC 2192 that :- “The form of the order is not decisive as to whether the order is by way of punishment and that even an innocuously worded order terminating the service may in the fact and circumstances of the case establish that an 11 enquiry into allegations of serious and grave character of misconduct involving stigma has been made in infraction of the provision of Art.311(2). Where the form of the order is merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal for misconduct it is always open to the Court before which the order is challenged to go behind the form and ascertain the true character of the order. If the Court holds that the order though in the form is merely a determination of employment is in reality a cloak for an order of punishment, the Court would not debarred, merely because of the form of the order, in giving effect to the rights conferred by law upon the employee.” With this premise the court considering the facts noticed by us above, concluded as under:- “Even though the order of discharge may be non-committal, it cannot stand alone. Though the noting in the file of the Government may be irrelevant, the cause for the order cannot be ignored. The recommendation which is the basis or foundation for the order should be read 12 along with the order for the purpose of determining its character. If on reading the two together the Court reaches the conclusion that the alleged act of misconduct was the cause of the order and that but for the incident it would not have been passed then it is inevitable that the order of discharge should fall to the ground if the servant has not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself as provided in Art.311(2) of the Constitution.” If we look to the facts of the present case, the casual link between the alleged incident of the petitioner having found in the day time in drunken condition and his discharge from service is well established. According to the un-disputed and un- traversed pleadings, the respondents conducted the preliminary enquiry and found the conduct to be so grievous that his continuance in service was not considered to be justified. But for the alleged incident, there was no reason that he would have been discharged 13 from service, is an admitted case by the respondents. Therefore, it is clear that the impugned order of discharge is nothing but a direct result of the finding recorded in the preliminary enquiry against the petitioner in which the petitioner had not participated. The impugned order was founded on finding reached by the respondent in preliminary enquiry held at the back of the petitioner which was clearly in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The ratio of Anoop Jaiswal's case fully governs the facts and circumstances of the present case. The order under appeal is in consonance with the aforesaid decision and does not call for interference. According, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. [ SANGEET LODHA ], J. [ RAJESH BALIA ], J. babulal/