Employee's Request For Reinstatement After Acquittal Can't Be Rejected Without Re-Examining Material Forming Basis Of Termination: Patna HC
While quashing the health department's order terminating the services of a man, the Patna High Court reiterated that natural justice principles require that an individual must be given the opportunity to respond to any adverse evidence before such punitive actions are taken against them.
In doing so the high court observed that the respondent-Department should have re-examined the matter, particularly the documents used to justify the petitioner's termination, before rejecting his reinstatement request.
The petitioner had been granted the contract of Block health manager the criteria for which was having an MBA degree. An FIR was subsequently registered against him for allegedly forging his MBA mark sheet and based on this his contract was terminated. When he was acquitted and moved a representation for reinstatement the same was rejected on the ground that his acquittal was not honourable. As his further representations went unanswered he moved the high court in a writ petition.
A single judge bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri in its order observed, “As per the principles of natural justice, especially the rule of audi alteram partem (hear the other side), it is imperative that a person is given the opportunity to respond to any adverse evidence before a punitive action, such as termination of employment is taken. In this case, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to address the allegations or participate in a departmental inquiry, where he could defend himself against the charges of forgery".
"The denial of such an opportunity constitutes a violation of the petitioner's right to procedural fairness. Without affording the petitioner a chance to dispute the documents or findings against him, the termination decision is rendered procedurally unsound and unjust," it added.
The court further observed that following the petitioner's acquittal by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui on December 18, 2021 which unambiguously established that the allegations of submitting a fabricated mark sheet were unfounded, the petitioner was "not given a proper opportunity to have the documents involved in his termination reconsidered".
It said that despite his acquittal, the District Magistrate-cumChairman, DHS, Jamui, in its June 2023 decision denied the petitioner's request for reinstatement with the reasoning that the acquittal was not honorable.
It noted that the petitioner had filed multiple representations requesting that his case be reconsidered in light of his acquittal, but these were summarily rejected without any due process or proper inquiry into the status of the documents and the validity of the previous termination decision.
The Court ruled, “The failure to provide the petitioner an opportunity to present any new evidence or explanations after his acquittal and the refusal to reconsider the documents in question, violate the principles of natural justice. The respondents should have re- examined the entire matter, especially the documents that were the basis of the termination before rejecting the petitioner's request for reinstatement. Their refusal to do so demonstrates an arbitrary approach, denying the petitioner his legitimate right to procedural fairness post acquittal".
The Petitioner's Counsel argued that the termination order was illegal and violated Article 311, as it was issued by an unauthorised authority—the Medical officer in charge (MOIC), PHC, Barhat. The Counsel said that no departmental inquiry or show-cause notice was provided, breaching natural justice principles. The FIR was based on a fabricated photocopy, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate had acquitted the petitioner of all charges, establishing the allegations as false.
In response, the Respondent's Counsel contended that the petitioner's contractual appointment had expired by the time of his termination, and he therefore had no legal right to retain the position. The verification process showed that the petitioner's mark sheet was forged, justifying his termination. The respondents maintained that the petitioner's acquittal was not honourable, and they were not obligated to reinstate him solely based on the acquittal.
He moved the the same was rejected was alleged that he had forged his further found that that the department's refusal to review the documents demonstrated an arbitrary approach, violating the petitioner's right to procedural fairness following his acquittal.
While considering the plea, high court emphasized that contractual employment naturally concludes with the contract's expiry, which in the petitioner's case was in 2013. The Court held that the respondents were under no obligation to renew the expired contract, especially given discrepancies found during a verification process.
However, the Court noted that there was no material on record to indicate that the petitioner was informed of the discrepancies in the marksheet or given a chance to respond to the findings before the issuance of the termination order in July 2013.
"The verification process initiated by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Secretary, DHS, Jamui with L.N.Mishra College of Business Management did not include any formal communication to the petitioner or an opportunity for him to explain the alleged inconsistencies," it said.
Finding the termination as arbitrary, the high court quashed the order and directed the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential financial benefits.
Case Title: Kanchan Kumar Mishra v The State of Bihar & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 101