Inquiry Not A Choice, Authorities Must Record Reasons For Skipping It Before Dismissing Employees: J&K High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that authorities cannot dismiss a government employee without recording valid reasons for bypassing a departmental inquiry.In allowing an appeal from a cop against his orders of termination without due process Justices Rajnesh Oswal & Moksha Khajuria Kazmi observed,“..the competent authority can dispense with the inquiry but...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that authorities cannot dismiss a government employee without recording valid reasons for bypassing a departmental inquiry.
In allowing an appeal from a cop against his orders of termination without due process Justices Rajnesh Oswal & Moksha Khajuria Kazmi observed,
“..the competent authority can dispense with the inquiry but after recording satisfaction that there are sufficient reasons which make the holding of an enquiry not practicable. So far as the present case is concerned, the respondent No.3 has miserably failed to record its satisfaction that holding of an enquiry is not practicable due to certain circumstances”.
Background:
Appellant Abdul Hamid Sheikh was dismissed from service in 2019 based on allegations that during his duty as a PSO (Personal Security Officer) he came in contact with a driver who was allegedly linked to militants. He was accused of confessing during interrogation that he had planned to steal weapons from other PSOs and provide them to the militants.
Sheikh challenged his dismissal before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) after his departmental appeal was rejected. The Tribunal dismissed his petition, upholding the dismissal order.
Aggrieved of the same Sheikh, through his lawyer, argued before the High Court that the authorities did not follow proper procedure as mandated by the Constitution. He claimed that he was not given a fair chance to defend himself and that the dismissal order lacked a proper explanation for bypassing a departmental inquiry.
The respondents, on the other hand, defended the dismissal order, arguing that the seriousness of the allegations against Sheikh made holding an inquiry impractical.
Observations of the Court:
Making a critical distinction between the "necessity" and "practicability" of holding an inquiry the bench cited judgements in Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel (1985) and Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab (1991), and observed that the competent authority can only dispense with an inquiry if it has a valid reason and records its satisfaction that holding an inquiry is not practicable due to the circumstances.
In Sheikh's case, the court found that the authorities failed to record such a justification for bypassing the inquiry and remarked,
“So far as the present case is concerned, the respondent No.3, instead of recording its satisfaction that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry, has dismissed the petitioner from service by observing that there is 'no need' for enquiry as the petitioner has confessed his nefarious activities”.
The bench further noted that the dismissal order did not mention "not reasonably practicable" as required under the relevant provision of the Constitution and underscored that dismissing an employee without proper inquiry is a serious matter and that authorities should not take such decisions lightly.
“The satisfaction to be recorded by the competent authority that holding of inquiry is reasonably not practicable due to some reason(s) is the constitutional obligation on the part of the competent authority before dismissing or removing or reducing the delinquent employee”, the bench recorded.
The court also included a word of caution for the authorities and emphasized that utmost care and adherence to legal procedures are crucial when dealing with serious allegations that can impact public order and national security.
In alignment with the said observations, the court quashed the dismissal order due to these procedural lapses. The court directed the authorities to reinstate Sheikh within three months. However, the court clarified that the respondents are free to initiate fresh proceedings against Sheikh following proper legal guidelines.
Case Title: Abdul Hamid Sheikh Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 77
Mr. Bhat Fayaz, Advocate, with Ms. Ishrat Advocate appeared for Appellant, the UT of J&K was represented by Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG, with Ms. Maha Majid, Advocate.Mr. Mubeen Wani, Dy. AG.