Termination of Temporary employee without Inquiry Violates Principle of natural Justice: Karnataka HC
In a writ petition filed by an employee against an order (termination) terminating her employment, the court held as follows:. The employee had requested a writ of mandamus to be reinstated in her role as an accountant at the District Town Municipal Cell, Bagalkot.
Termination of Temporary employee without Inquiry Violates Principle of natural Justice: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court ruled that it would be against natural justice principles to fire a temporary employee without first conducting an investigation.
In a writ petition filed by an employee against an order terminating her employment, the court held as follows:. The employee had requested a writ of mandamus to be reinstated in her role as an accountant at the District Town Municipal Cell, Bagalkot.
A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “The petitioner was appointed as accountant in the year 2008, albeit on a temporary basis. She had completed more than 10 years of service at the time she was issued a show cause notice. Therefore, though she was not a permanent employee, she had acquired a quasi-permanent status and termination of her service is based on the fact that she has been unauthorized absent and such absence has hindered functioning of the Council Therefore, it is based on allegations. If termination is based on allegations, even to a temporary employee, an inquiry at the very least will have to be conducted, failure of which would become violative of the principles of natural justice, as the employer is terminating an employee on account of allegations without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.”
Advocate Vinay S. Koujalagi stood for the petitioner, while HCGP VS. Kalasurmath and Advocate Prakash Hosamane appeared for the respondents.
Factual Background-
According to an appointment order issued by the Town Municipality Council, the petitioner was temporarily assigned as an accountant to the Town Municipal Cell in Bagalkot. She continued to work with the Deputy Commissioner of the Cell without taking a leave of absence. While doing so, she and all other employees in a similar situation sought the High Court to request that her services be regularized. The writ petitions were dismissed, asking the authorities to review the case and refraining from interfering with services until they had done so.
Following the aforementioned directive, the petitioner received a show-cause notice, citing her continued unapproved absence as the reason behind the delays in several Council-initiated initiatives. After receiving notice of this kind, she responded.
She filed a petition because, despite her thorough response, she was fired from her job without conducting any kind of investigation. The state challenged the aforementioned petition’s approval, which ordered her to be reinstated with 50% of her back pay, through an appeal. The Division Bench granted the same and returned the case to the Single Judge so that competing allegations may be thoroughly examined again. Hence, the petition was to be reconsidered for the second time after close to five years of filing.
Given the case’s facts and circumstances, the High Court observed, “Even in this instance, the state is only seeking that relief; instead of seeking a remand to the single judge bench, which is not a court subordinate to the division bench under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, the state could have argued for the same relief before the division bench.” Remand is to a Court subordinate, which the learned single judge is not, under normal circumstances, excluding those evaluated by the Full Bench, even when the matter is determined on merit.”
The employee must be given the chance to justify their actions, the court ruled, and any stigma associated with the termination decision must be eliminated. It further mentioned that no investigation has been done in this particular situation.
“The state is only requesting permission to conduct an investigation before this bench. It concluded that the proposal should be accepted since it complies with the legal standards established by the Supreme Court in numerous rulings.
As a result, the High Court ordered that the petitioner be put back on duty while also partially granting the petition.
Read more news like this on PropleManager.co.in
Value our content… contribute towards our growth. Even a small contribution per month would be of great help to us. Since our establishment, we have been serving the industry through daily news and updates.
Our content is free for all, and we plan to keep it that way
Support the People Manager. Pay Here (All it takes is a minute)
- SBI General Insurance announces Naveen Chandra Jha as the new Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer - June 26, 2024
- Karnataka HC declines to Quash FIR against Man for writing Woman’s Mobile Number in toilet as ‘Call Girl’ - June 25, 2024
- Government extends leave benefits to surrogate mothers and adoptive parents employed by them - June 25, 2024
