Disciplinary Action Without Due Enquiry Is Illegal; Meghalaya High Court

Background

Senora Johny Arengh, a Lower Divisional Assistant at the GHADC, had also been serving as President of the Non-Gazetted Employee Association (NGEA). The GHADC employees were discontented with various issues related to their working conditions. As a result, a protest took place on 22-07-2021 at the GHADC's office premises, which allegedly disrupted operations during a COVID-19 lockdown. The Principal Secretary of GHADC issued a show-cause notice to Arengh, accusing him of organizing the protest and making defamatory statements against the administration. In his reply on 01-08-2021, Arengh denied the allegations, arguing that his actions were lawful and in his capacity as the NGEA President.

Despite this, the GHADC decided to terminate Arengh's employment, claiming that his response to the show-cause notice was unsatisfactory. A formal termination order was issued on 06-08-2021, dismissing him from service with immediate effect. Notably, seven other employees who were similarly charged with participating in the protest were only suspended and subsequently reinstated. Arengh contended that this differential treatment violated his right to equal treatment and was a clear example of arbitrary action. He approached the Meghalaya High Court, seeking the quashing of the termination order and reinstatement with full benefits.

Arguments

The petitioner, represented by Mr. P.T. Sangma, argued that his termination was arbitrary and in violation of established service law norms. The petitioner contended that no proper departmental inquiry was initiated, and the principles of natural justice were ignored. Furthermore, the seven other similarly charged employees were reinstated, demonstrating discriminatory treatment. The petitioner sought to quash the termination order and be reinstated with all consequential benefits.

Mr. S. Dey, counsel for the GHADC, argued that the petitioner, as NGEA President, had instigated protests during the COVID-19 lockdown, an act unbecoming of a Council employee. The GHADC argued that since its employees were not governed by state or central government service rules, a formal inquiry was not mandatory. The respondent also stated that the petitioner's employment was temporary, and his termination was justified given his actions.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the court highlighted the absence of a formal inquiry prior to the termination. While GHADC argued that it was not bound by state or central service rules, the court noted that the GHADC had adopted the Meghalaya Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 2011. These rules clearly stipulate that a formal inquiry must be conducted before taking any disciplinary action such as termination. Rule 9 of the 2011 Rules outlines a specific procedure, including framing charges against the employee, giving them an opportunity to defend themselves, and conducting a thorough inquiry. The court emphasized that simply issuing a show-cause notice does not substitute the requirement of an inquiry.

Secondly, the court observed that the petitioner was terminated, while the seven other employees involved in the same protest were only suspended and later reinstated. The court observed that the respondents did not provide any rationale for this differential treatment, which violated the principles of equality enshrined in service jurisprudence. Thirdly, the court rejected GHADC's defense that Arengh's employment was temporary, arguing that even temporary employees are entitled to procedural fairness before termination. Citing Sirsi Municipality v. Cecelia Kom Frances Tellis (1973(3) SCR 348), the court clarified that a temporary employee cannot be dismissed without following due process.

The court also analyzed GHADC's reliance on the Abdul Motaleb v. Garo Hills District Council (AIR 1961 Assam 69) case, where it was held that Article 311 of the Constitution does not apply to employees of autonomous district councils. The court accepted this, but stressed that the non-applicability of Article 311 does not imply that natural justice can be ignored. Since the GHADC had adopted the 2011 Rules, the principles of natural justice still applied, and the Council was obligated to follow them. The GHADC's failure to conduct an inquiry and provide a fair hearing to the petitioner rendered the termination illegal. Based on the lack of due process, the arbitrary treatment of the petitioner, and the failure to follow its own disciplinary rules, the court quashed the termination order dated 06-08-2021. The GHADC was directed to reinstate the petitioner with all financial benefits immediately.

Decided on: 17-10-2024

Citation: 2024:MLHC:920

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. P.T. Sangma

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. S. Dey, Ms. N. Rajee