Kerala High Court Quashes Order Dismissing Sweeper For Suppressing Higher Qualification, Says State Known For High Literacy Rate

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan remarked that Kerala has the highest literacy rate and that most youngsters in Kerala in the new generation would at least have the qualification of 10th standard. The bench also found that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before concluding that she was guilty of charges alleged against her.

Relying upon the Apex Court decision in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderbad and others v. B. Karunakar and others (1993), the Court stated that it was illegal to deny an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to deny the charges levelled against her.

“From the above dictum laid down by the Apex Court, it is clear that the right to make representation to the disciplinary authority against the finding recorded in the enquiry report is an integral part of the opportunity of defense against the charges and it is a breach of principles of natural justice to deny the said right. The law laid down in this regard should apply to employees in all establishments whether Government or non Government, Public or private. This will be the case even if there are rules governing the disciplinary proceedings or not and whether they expressly prohibit the furnishing of the copy of the report or are silent on the subject”, stated the Court.

The petitioner was appointed in service in the year 2008 as a part-time sweeper and on completion of her probation, she was appointed as the Full Time House Keeper cum Peon in the bank.

The Bank had issued her memo of charges in 2013 alleging that she produced a fraudulent certificate showing that her qualification was only up to 7^th standard. An enquiry was conducted, and she was found guilty of misconduct and was dismissed from service. The Appellate Authority without considering the gravity of the penalty imposed upheld the dismissal order. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has approached the High Court.

The petitioner alleged that the dismissal order was issued without giving her an opportunity of hearing and would vitiate the principles of natural justice. She stated that the bank was also regularizing contingent employees who possess a higher qualification. She also submitted a revised qualification of the bank which states that persons who have not completed 12^th standard could apply for the post.

In the facts of the case, the Court stated that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to give an explanation about the enquiry report before the disciplinary authorities found her guilty of misconduct.

The Court stated that the petitioner had served five years in the bank and was aged 31 years when filing the writ petition. It stated that the respondents should consider before proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner was that she passed the 10^th standard when the qualification mandated was only a pass in the 7^th standard. “Now the petitioner is over-aged. At this distance of time, whether the enquiry should be continued or not is given to the wisdom of the respondents”, said the Court.

Accordingly, it quashed the dismissal order and stated that the respondents could decide if they wanted to proceed with the enquiry or not. It thus directed the respondents to act in accordance with the procedure established by law if they decide to continue with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocate P C Sasidharan

Counsel for the Respondents: Standing Counsel ASP Kurup

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 126

Case title: T.D.Sreejakumari v Union Bank Of India

Case number: WP(C) NO. 29338 OF 2014

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment