Madhya Pradesh High Court Reinstates Contractual Govt Employee Fired Due To Registration Of Criminal Case For 'Taking Bribes'

The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a case overturned the termination of a Junior Assistant employed on a contractual basis with the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation. 

In doing so the court said that the authority had taken a drastic step in terminating the petitioner's services just because a criminal case had been registered against him for allegedly accepting a bribe. This when the Madhya Pradesh Sadak Vikas Nigam (Sewa Bharti Tatha Sewa Sharten) Niyam, 2016 did not contain any provision stating that services can be terminated only on registration of an offence. 

A single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi in its order said, "In the Rules there is no provision that only on registration of offence, the services can be terminated. As such the reason contained in the impugned order for terminating the services of the petitioner is apparently stigmatic and would come in the way of future employment. Therefore, an enquiry needs to be conducted after affording proper opportunity to the petitioner". 

The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant Grade III since 2011 on a contractual basis. His services were terminated in April 2022 for the reason that "he was trapped" by Lokayukt Estahlishment while allegedly taking bribe and in consequence to the same, a criminal case was pending before the competent court.

The court further noted that as per the agreement entered into between petitioner and the corporation–on terms and conditions of appointment, his services could have been terminated by giving one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof. However the court said that the petitioner's services are governed under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 as is evident from 2016 Rules and if any decision of major penalty like termination is required to be taken, it shall be taken by following the provisions of the 2016 Rules.

"In my opinion, it is a drastic step taken by the authority for terminating the services of the petitioner only because a criminal case has been registered against him. The provisions of Rules, 1966 are very specific in this regard which provide that a major punishment like dismissal/termination can be imposed only after conviction in criminal case but registration of criminal case is no ground for taking such a drastic step," the court underscored. 

The high court noted that in the present case it cannot ignore that maximum appointments in the State and other authorities are being made on contractual basis.

"Not only the State but other organizations of the State are avoiding regular appointments and in every agreement executed between the employee and employer a condition is imposed that the services can be terminated by giving one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof, but imposing that condition does not mean that the same can be used arbitrarily.After rendering sufficient period of service, merely because employer does not like a particular employee and taking shelter of that clause/condition terminates services of the employee and that cannot be challenged, the claim of the employee cannot be rejected because there is such a condition in the contract. The said condition cannot be interpreted in such a manner," it underscored.

It further emphasized that terminating services of an employee without reason does not mean that the situation could be exploited by the employer and has to be some reason given which would be governed by the principles of natural justice. 

“Accordingly, in the present case, the order of termination is contrary to the provisions of Rules, 2016, because as per the said Rules, the petitioner was an employee of the respondent-Corporation and his services are governed with the Disciplinary Rules i.e. Rules, 1966 and as such termination only because a criminal case has been registered 11 against him is not permissible," the high court said. 

The petitioner contended that the termination was against the Madhya Pradesh Sadak Vikas Nigam (Sewa Bharti Tatha Sharten) Niyam, 2016. The service standards required the corporation to follow due process, including an investigation, prior to termination.

Allowing the plea the court said that the petitioner shall also be entitled to get wages for the period he remained out of service because of his termination. 

Case title: Vineet Kumar Tripathi v/s. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

 Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 271

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 9544 of 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order