Non-renewal of employment contract due to misconduct needs inquiry: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Thursday emphasized that mere non mention of background situation in a termination order does not make it non-stigmatic and the court can look into the context to determine the true nature of the termination order.
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the importance of conducting a formal inquiry when an employee’s contract is not renewed due to disciplinary reasons. Supreme Court in Swati Priyadarshini vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh &Ors. CA No. 9758/2024, on August 22, 2024, reinstated an employee whose employment contract had not been renewed due to alleged unsatisfactory performance and dereliction of duty. The Court observed that the termination, which was stigmatic in nature and related to alleged misconduct involving moral turpitude, could not have been carried out without conducting a proper inquiry.
The appeal was filed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 03.02.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Writ Appeal No. 956/2017, whereby it overruled the Judgment dated 20.06.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 8404/2013.
Apply for SHRM Leader Certification September 2024 Batches – open for registration
The case was heard by the bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ and emphasis that Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the lis, we find that the interference of the Division Bench with the judgment dated 20.06.2017 of the learned Single Judge, has to be interdicted at our hands.
“28. The position may, therefore, be summed up as follows: Any and every termination of service is not a dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. A termination of service brought about by the exercise of a contractual right is not per se dismissal or removal, as has been held by this Court in Satish Chander Anand v. Union of India [(1953) 1 SCC 420 : (1953) SCR 655]. Likewise the termination of service by compulsory retirement in terms of a specific rule regulating the conditions of service is not tantamount to the infliction of a punishment and does not attract Article 311(2), as has also been held by this Court in Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1955) 1 SCR 26]. In either of the two abovementioned cases the termination of the service did not carry with it the penal consequences of loss of pay, or allowances under Rule 52 of the Fundamental Rules. It is true that the misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification may be the motive or the inducing factor which influences the Government to take action under the terms of the contract of employment or the specific service rule, nevertheless, if a right exists, under the contract or the rules, to terminate the service the motive operating on the mind of the Government is, as Chagla, C.J., has said in Shrinivas Ganesh v. Union of India [LR 58 Bom 673 : AIR (1956) Bom 455] wholly irrelevant. In short, if the termination of service is founded on the right flowing from contract or the service rules then, prima facie, the termination is not a punishment and carries with it no evil consequences and so Article 311 is not attracted. But even if the Government has, by contract or under the rules, the right to terminate the employment without going through the procedure prescribed for inflicting the punishment of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, the Government may, nevertheless, choose to punish the servant and if the termination of service is sought to be founded on misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification, then it is a punishment and the requirements of Article 311 must be complied with. As already stated if the servant has got a right to continue in the post, then, unless the contract of employment or the rules provide to the contrary, his services cannot be terminated otherwise than for misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other good and sufficient cause. A termination of the service of such a servant on such grounds must be a punishment and, therefore, a dismissal or removal within Article 311, for it operates as a forefeiture of his right and he is visited with the evil consequences of loss of pay and allowances. It puts an indelible stigma on the officer affecting his future career. A reduction in rank likewise may be by way of punishment or it may be an innocuous thing. If the government servant has a right to a particular rank, then the very reduction from that rank will operate as a penalty, for he will then lose the emoluments and privileges of that rank. If, however, he has no right to the particular rank, his reduction from an officiating higher rank to his substantive lower rank will not ordinarily be a punishment. But the mere fact that the servant has no title to the post or the rank and the Government has, by contract, express or implied, or under the rules, the right to reduce him to a lower post does not mean that an order of reduction of a servant to a lower post or rank cannot in any circumstances be a punishment. The real test for determining whether the reduction in such cases is or is not by way of punishment is to find out if the order for the reduction also visits the servant with any penal consequences. Thus if the order entails or provides for the forfeiture of his pay or allowances or the loss of his seniority in his substantive rank or the stoppage or postponement of his future chances of promotion, then that circumstance may indicate that although in form the Government had purported to exercise its right to terminate the employment or to reduce the servant to a lower rank under the terms of the contract of employment or under the rules, in truth and reality the Government has terminated the employment as and by way of penalty. The use of the expression “terminate” or “discharge” is not conclusive. In spite of the use of such innocuous expressions, the court has to apply the two tests mentioned above, namely, (1) whether the servant had a right to the post or the rank, or (2) whether he has been visited with evil consequences of the kind hereinbefore referred to? If the case satisfies either of the two tests then it must be held that the servant has been punished and the termination of his service must be taken as a dismissal or removal from service or the reversion to his substantive rank must be regarded as a reduction in rank and if the requirements of the rules and Article 311, which give protection to government servant have not been complied with, the termination of the service or the reduction in rank must be held to be wrongful and in violation of the constitutional right of the servant.”
This ruling underscores the significance of adhering to principles of natural justice and conducting proper inquiries before taking disciplinary actions against employees.
The appeal is allowed and disposed of on the above terms while leaving the parties to bear their own expenses.
Stay tuned, to PropleManager.co.in for further updates on the evolving workplace paradigm.
- PwC Plans to Track Employees’ Working Locations in Hybrid Crackdown – will this be the best way? - September 11, 2024
- Two in five employees do not think their manager is trained enough, survey finds - September 11, 2024
- Mandatory 180 Days ‘Maternity Leave Benefits to Every Women in Private and Unorganized sector : Rajasthan High Court - September 9, 2024
