Termination Of Employee For A Single Clerical Mistake In Entire Service Career 'Excessive', Minor Penalty Could Be Imposed: MP High Court

While dismissing the State's appeal against an order for payment of back wages to a terminated employee, the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court opined that termination of an employee based on a singular clerical mistake in entire service career seems to be 'excessive' and minor penalty could have been imposed.

Thus, the court directed the State to pay 50% back wages to the said employee.

The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Gajendra Singh observed,

“For the singular negligence in entire service career of the writ petitioner the harsh punishment of termination from service was imposed by the Collector that too, without giving any show cause notice and without conducting any inquiry, therefore the Writ Court rightly found that the order is stigmatic and punishment of termination has been imposed, without giving any opportunity of hearing, hence unsustainable.”

The appeal was preferred against an order dated 17 August 2024 which allowed petitioner's challenge to his termination back in 2017.

During the hearing on Wednesday (January 8), the Deputy Advocate General submitted that the challenge is confined to second part of the order whereby 50% bank wages have been granted to the petitioner.

The Court orally pointed that based on the honorarium being received by the terminated employee, not a very huge amount of back wages would become due.

The DAG submitted that the question is not related only to a single person and that they have been facing similar issues in multiple cases.

The court however responded, “Baki cases jab aenge tab dekha jaega… (We will see when other cases come)”

The DAG then submitted that the Petitioner in this case had not pleaded that she is unemployed, which is necessary to seek back wages from the previous employer. It was submitted, “As a matter of policy, the honourable apex court has said that if she has not pleaded in respect of that she was not in a gainful employment, she is not entitled to get the back wages then."

On the point of the termination, the DAG submitted that State government can proceed against the petitioner afresh, in accordance with the law. "The misappropriation made by the petitioner is still not adjudicated. So we have the liberty is issue a afresh notice and conduct an inquiry. This aspect has not been considered the impugned order…”

Irked, the bench court said, “Ye chiz court ko batane ki zarurat thi kya? Ye toh aapko Day 1 se pata hai ki principle of natural justice, inquiry and everything…ye aapko kar lena tha. (Was there a need to tell this thing to the court? You know this from Day 1 that you have to follow principle of natural justice, inquiry and everything.)”

It continued, “You read the termination order. Whether it is a singular act that warrants termination? She is in service since 2008. Singular mistake happened in 8-9 years of service. It was a clerical mistake of mentioning a beneficiary's name at two places. Based on this you passed a termination order. There is no financial allegation or allegation of misappropriation. One mistake in entire service career, you have taken so seriously…Collector terminated and then Commissioner approved it…there is no allegation that she deliberately had some financial”

The counsel sought to submit that termination was based on the employee's negligent conduct. However, the Court orally remarked that the employer could have resorted to minor punishments.

"There is no termination in this. You give minor punishments/penalties for regular employees and direct termination for contractual ones? You could have warned her. You say she should submit on affidavit stating that she is not gainfully employed. So how will anyone run their house? I don't understand this strange logic that someone should starve but if they are employed, then they won't get back wages.”

The court thereafter dictated its order noting that appellants are challenging the order only in respect of payment of pay of 50% back wages and as far as the issue of termination was concerned, liberty had already been granted to proceed against the respondent, afresh, in accordance with the law.

In its order, court stated, “…when the Writ Court has found that the order of termination is illegal and the petitioner is liable to be taken back hence backwages @ 50% has rightly been directed to be paid to her. So far as gainfully employed is concerned, naturally after termination for the survival of livelihood any terminated employee would earn for himself/herself and for his/her family members and that cannot be the basis for denial for backwages, specially when the order of termination was found to be illegal.”

The court, hence, dismissed the present appeal.

Case Title: The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others Versus Smt. Hemlata Tala, Writ Appeal No. 3111 Of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order