LPA No. 1770 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH 1. LPA No. 1770 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 16, 2011 The [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] and others Respondents 2. LPA No. 1771 of 2010 (O&M) The [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] and others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present: Mr. [ENTITY], Sr. Advocate with Ms. [ENTITY], Advocate for the appellant(s) Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for Caveator-respondent No.1 (in LPA No. 1771 of 2010) and respondent No.1 (in LPA No. 1770 of 2010) 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? [ENTITY], J.
1. These two appeals under Clause X of the Letters Patent are directed against a common judgment dated 08.07.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the services of a confirmed employee cannot be terminated without holding departmental inquiry. The learned Single Judge has recorded following conclusion in the last two paras of the judgment, which reads thus:
"On consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Once it is admitted that as per the instructions issued by the Registrar, and Rules framed adopting the instructions of the Registrar, otherwise also as per the principles of natural justice, which an employer was required to follow, were not adopted, and that the impugned order of dismissal was passed without holding any departmental enquiry, and that the Society took into consideration certain allegations qua which even notice was not issued. The impugned orders cannot be sustained, being arbitrary and in violation of [SECTION] of the [ACT], as also the principles of natural justice.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside, and a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits of service. However, it shall be open to the employer to proceed with further enquiry, in case, it so desire to punish the petitioner for the misconduct alleged, by following procedure of law as contained in the statutory rules."
2. A perusal of the aforesaid finding would show that the order of dismissal of the writ petitioner-respondents(s) have been passed without following the procedure established by law. The learned Single Judge has gone to the extent of observing in the earlier para of the judgment that even if there is no rule or instructions, some method satisfying the requirement of [SECTION] of the [ACT] has to be devised.
3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 08.03.2011, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Letters Patent Bench may consider only one question by restricting the grant of benefits of pension and pensionary dues. It was also submitted that the back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of retirement of the writ petitioner-respondents(s) may not be ordered. On that basis we had issued notice of motion.
4. Mr. [ENTITY], learned counsel for the writ petitioner- respondent No.1 has pointed out at the outset that there is no provision for any pension or pensionary benefits with the appellant- society which was put forward for consideration of this Court at the time when notice of motion was issued. However, Mr. [ENTITY], learned Senior counsel for the appellant-society has pointed out that the death-cum-retirement gratuity is payable.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the extreme penalty of dismissal cannot be ordered by the appellant-society in respect of a confirmed and regular employee who has rendered long service to the appellant- society in pursuance of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of [PRECEDENT] and the view of the [ACT] Bench taken in [PRECEDENT]. It is not open to the appellant-society to raise the issue that they could dismiss an employee without holding a departmental inquiry because such argument would run counter to the view taken by the [ACT] Bench in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra). It has been held by the [ACT] Bench that such a procedure would be against the provisions of [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has committed no error in law which may warrant admission of these appeals. The impugned judgment is based on correct facts and law and deserves to be upheld.
6. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge is upheld.
7. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.
([ENTITY]) JUDGE ([ENTITY]) JUDGE May 16, 2011 Atul