Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal Of Class-IV Court Staff For Sending Representations Directly To HC & CM On Salary Greivances

The Supreme Court on Thursday (February 15) observed that an employee cannot be terminated from the post merely because he sent a representation to his superior officers flouting the proper channel.

“In this regard, it is suffice to observe that Class-IV employee, when in financial hardship, may represent directly to the superior but that by itself cannot amount to major misconduct for which punishment of termination from service should be imposed.”, the Bench Comprising of Justices B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed while setting aside the High Court's order that upheld the termination of the Class-IV employee.

In the instant case, an appellant class-IV employee employed in the Bareilly Judgeship was transferred and posted as a Process Server in the Nazarat of an outlying court of Baheri, District Bareilly. The employee was denied the allowance as a Process Server. Against the denial of allowance, the appellant employee has made representations to superior authorities such as the Registrar General of the High Court and other officials of the State Government including the then Chief Minister without routing the same through proper channels.

Taking note of the aforesaid flouting of the route in making a representation, the District Judge while accepting the inquiry report dismissed the employee from the position of Class-IV employee.

The High Court also upheld the dismissal of the employee. Against which the employee preferred a civil appeal before the Supreme Court.

It was argued on behalf of the employee that the punishment imposed on him constitutes a flagrant breach of Rule 3 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, as the quantum of punishment imposed on the appellant is not commensurate to the guilt.

On the contrary, the respondent state supported the dismissal of the employee from the position after finding that the employee had directly sent the representations to the High Court and  Chief Minister/Minister without routing the same through the proper channel.

The Supreme Court set aside the charge against the employee that he had made false allegations of caste discrimination.

"...it is significant to notice that the appellant himself has not made any such allegation in his letter dated 05.06.2003. In the said letter, he has stated that it was the Central Nazir who told him that the District Judge is saying that the appellant is a Harijan employee, and he hates the people of such community. Thus, it is clear that the appellant himself has not made any such allegation against the District Judge but it was the Central Nazir who made that statement, " the Supreme Court said.

The other charge against the appellant was regarding making representation directly to the High Court and Chief Minister.

The Judgment authored by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra while disagreeing with the contentions made by the respondent state observed as follows:

“The charge no. 2 against the appellant concerns directly sending the representations to the High Court and Hon'ble Chief Minister/Minister without routing the same through proper channel. In this regard, it is suffice to observe that Class-IV employee, when in financial hardship, may represent directly to the superior but that by itself cannot amount to major misconduct for which punishment of termination from service should be imposed.”

“It is trite law that ordinarily the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer should not be interfered by the appellate authority or by the writ court. However, when the finding of guilt recorded by the Inquiry Officer is based on perverse finding the same can always be interfered”, the court added.

Based on the above findings, the court set aside the impugned findings of the High Court and directed the reinstatement of the employee in the service.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. P. K. Dey, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shilpi Dey Auditya, Adv. Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Md. Anas Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Subart, Adv. Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR Mr. Wrick Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Aditi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Mohan, Adv.

Case Details: CHATRAPAL VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. | C.A. No. 002461 / 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 120

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment