The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, has set aside the termination of a college employee, holding that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by serious procedural lapses and violation of principles of natural justice. The Court found that the authorities had failed to conduct a fair inquiry, did not issue a show-cause notice, and denied the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
The bench of Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat noted that despite earlier directions and liberty granted by a Division Bench to conduct a fresh inquiry, the management pre-decided the penalty and proceeded in a mechanical manner. It has observed that the inquiry report lacked reasoning and did not disclose any proper evaluation of evidence.
“True it is that respondents failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under the relevant Rules of 1978 and 1983. Prior to approval, proper inquiry and compliance timelines were not adhered to. The petitioner was neither issued any show-cause notice nor given an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Even after the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, no notice was served upon the petitioner, no witnesses were examined in his presence and the inquiry report was not supplied to him.
The Enquiry Officer also did not record any new fact and merely reiterated earlier findings. Despite liberty granted by the Division Bench to conduct a fresh inquiry, the respondents failed to follow due procedure, rendering the entire inquiry and subsequent action vitiated.”
Reiterating settled law, the Court emphasised that administrative and quasi-judicial decisions must be reasoned and transparent, especially when they affect livelihood, as held in Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer, (1985) 3 SCC 378. Accordingly, the Court quashed the termination orders and directed reinstatement with full back wages, pensionary benefits, and ₹50,000 as compensation to the petitioner.
Appearances
Shri Sankalp Sharma – Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Shiraz Qureshi – Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Shri Rajendra Kumar Shrivastav – Advocate for respondent No.3 and 4.
