Govt. Servant Terminated On 'Vague Allegation/Suspicion' Of Joining Farmers Protest: P&H High Court Issues Notice To Haryana State
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has issued notice to the Haryana Government for allegedly terminating the service of a Government Servant, Rajuddin on a vague allegation/suspicion of the petitioner having participated in the strike call given by farmers at Tikri Border, Delhi.The Bench of Justice Arun Monga also directed that till the next date of hearing, the post of Senior...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has issued notice to the Haryana Government for allegedly terminating the service of a Government Servant, Rajuddin on a vague allegation/suspicion of the petitioner having participated in the strike call given by farmers at Tikri Border, Delhi.
The Bench of Justice Arun Monga also directed that till the next date of hearing, the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor (STS) (help by the petitioner) at Community Health Centre, Nuh shall be kept vacant.
Rajuddin, contended before the Court that he was appointed on the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor (STS) under National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) by Civil Surgeon-cum-Chairman, Executive Committee, District Health and Family Welfare, Mewat.
Further, it was stated that he had been serving uninterruptedly since 2014.
However, merely on a vague allegation/suspicion of the petitioner having participated in the strike call given by farmers at Tikri Border, Delhi on 05.12.2020, he added, his services were summarily terminated vide impugned order dated 25.02.2021 without holding any inquiry and/or giving any show-cause-notice and/or opportunity of being heard in person.
Issuing the notice, the Court adjourned the matter to July 16, 2021.
Last year, the Tripura High Court had held that government servants are entitled to hold and express their political beliefs, subject to the restrictions laid under Rule 5 of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988.
"As a Government servant the petitioner is not devoid of her right of free speech, a fundamental right which can be curtailed only by a valid law. She was entitled to hold her own beliefs and express them in the manner she desired of course subject to not crossing the borders laid down in sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Conduct Rules," Chief Justice Akil Kureshi held.
In 2019, the Kerala High Court had directed the state to reinstate a KSRTC conductor placed under suspension for circulating allegedly derogatory remarks against the Chief Minister of Kerala Pinarayi Vijayan through Whatsapp. However, his reinstatement was made subject to disciplinary proceedings.
"One cannot be prevented from expressing his views merely because he is an employee. In a democratic society, every institution is governed by democratic norms. Healthy criticism is a better way to govern a public institution", Justice Muhamed Mustaque had said in that order.
Justice Mustaque had also in November 2018 held that continued suspension of a University Assistant of Mahatma Gandhi University, who posted sarcastic comments in social media following his removal from the membership of University Employees Association, was unjustified.
"Discipline and servitude are to be distinguished. If an employee speaks out in the social media in a general perspective which is not inconsistent with the collective interest of the Institution, that is part of his right of free speech. No authority should expect one to be silent. Survival of public Institution depends upon how it accounts for democratic values. Free expression is the corner stone of democratic value. Every functionary of public power therefore, must command liberty to their constituents", Justice Mustaque stated in that judgment.
Read Order