CASE TITLE:
ATTIKARIBETTU GRAMA PANCHAYATH VS SRI.GANESHA
BENCH:
HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
11.01.2024
PARTIES:
APPELLANT: ATTIKARIBETTU GRAMA PANCHAYATH
RESPONDENT: SRI.GANESHA
SUBJECT
A Single Judge's previous order, which commanded the reinstatement of a terminated employee, is under challenge in this intra-court appeal.The introduction of the appeal expounds on two key elements: procedural and constitutional aspects. It establishes, with clarity, that removal based on moral turpitude grounds is inapplicable due to one crucial fact--the employee's non-conviction.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Emphasizing the significance of adhering to natural justice principles, the court ensures a fair hearing for an employee before dismissal. It invokes constitutional rights as per Article 21 and references OLGA TELLIS vs BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.
BRIEF FACTS
This intra-court appeal challenges a Single Judge's order from 06.04.2023. In W.P.No.543/2022, the order favored the Private Respondent: it overturned his dismissal from service and mandated for a direct reinstatement; this signifies an important development in our case.
The appellate court, after hearing both parties, agrees with the Single Judge's reasoning.Without undergoing an inquiry, the Respondent faced dismissal due to a pending criminal case registered against him.
Under Article 21, the principles of natural justice and fundamental right to life and liberty prohibit dismissing an individual from public employment without a formal inquiry.
Job loss significantly impacts livelihood, violating the constitutional right to life and liberty. The court, in its emphasis on the significance of natural justice and the right to a hearing before any punitive action, quotes OLGA TELLIS vs BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.
The court, in an emphasis of utmost importance, quotes Justice Felix Frankfurter's stance on the matter: it is imperative to provide notice and opportunity--a fundamental principle when addressing those who may suffer severe repercussions.
Typically, an employer can dismiss a staff member who has received a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude.
In this case, however, we cannot apply the question of removal on those grounds as the Respondent has no conviction to his name.
The Court finds no merit in the appeal and promptly dismisses it, imposing costs on the Appellants without difficulty.
The Appellants are responsible for deciding on the request for backwages during the period of unemployment.
QUESTIONS RAISED
1.Did the learned Single Judge err in ordering the Private Respondent's reinstatement? This decision was made despite his dismissal from service without a thorough inquiry, and with a pending criminal case against him.
2.Should public employment dismiss an employee without offering a hearing or considering the principles of natural justice—particularly when this action directly impacts their fundamental right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
Challenging the learned Single Judge's order dated 06.04.2023, which overturned the Private Respondent's dismissal from service; the Appellant asserts in favor of this reinstatement directive for our Respondent—his position is indeed quite favorable.
The Appellant emphasizes: an undisputed fact--only a pending criminal case stands against the Respondent, yet dismissal without any inquiry is unjustifiable.
The Appellant presents an argument: dismissing an employee sans affording them a hearing contravenes the principles of natural justice; furthermore, this action transgresses what they perceive as a crucial segment within Article 14.
The Appellant maintains a firm position: withdrawing employment, particularly within the public service sector, equates to stripping an individual of their livelihood. This action--the appellant asserts--transgresses the fundamental right enshrined under Article 21; it infringes upon life and liberty.To bolster the argument that livelihood constitutes a fundamental right, the Appellant invokes the OLGA TELLIS vs BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (AIR 1986 SC 180) case.
The Appellant underscores: as a Welfare State, the Panchayath entity must exemplify an ideal employer; its decisions should mirror human values and align with constitutional principles a perspective we strongly advocate.
The Appellant cites Justice Felix Frankfurter of the US Supreme Court, who underscores the cruciality of providing notice and an opportunity to individuals at risk for substantial losses; this emphasizes our position.
The Appellant asserts: the Respondent has never faced a conviction or sentencing for an offense involving moral turpitude; ordinarily, in such instances removal from employment is deemed acceptable. However, this standard does not apply to our current situation.
The Appellant asserts: "This appeal, lacking in merits should face dismissal." Nevertheless; it remains within the appellants' discretion to determine the decision regarding backwages during their unemployment period.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
The respondent primarily argues for the justifiability of the learned Single Judge's decision to overturn his dismissed from service; this assertion forms his main point.
The judge rightly pointed out that the dismissal happened without any proper inquiry.
The criminal case against the respondent remains ongoing; consequently, he argues his job dismissal issued before a conclusive end to the said case is unjustifiable due to lack of fair investigation.
The argument underscores a contradiction to Article 21 of the constitution, which guarantees the right to life and liberty: Taking away an individual's job equates with depriving them of their means for earning a living.
The respondent underscores: natural justice–a concept encompassing the crucial principle of affording an individual with a fair chance to present their case before any detrimental action is enacted against them. Dismissing without granting this opportunity; that indeed constitutes unfairness in decision making.
The argument, rooted in the concept of a Welfare State, posits that entities - particularly those offering employment opportunities must proactively function as exemplary employers. Their decisions should prioritize human values; their actions must adhere to justice and fairness principles.
The argument features a pivotal quotation from US Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, emphasizing the paramount significance of providing notice and an opportunity to an individual potentially confronting grave repercussions.
The emphasis lies in the fact: the respondent has not suffered a conviction or sentence for an offense involving moral turpitude. The conventional grounds which typically lead to termination of employment under these circumstances do not find application here.
The respondent vigorously maintains: the appeal is devoid of merit it should face dismissal. Furthermore, they defer to the appellants' discretion in determining whether a request for payment of back wages during the period when employment ceased might be appropriate; indeed, this decision lies entirely with them.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
Dismissing the appeal which challenged a judge's order to reinstate an employee, terminated without due process because of a pending criminal case the court underscored its commitment to upholding natural justice. It emphasized not only that precipitously snatching away one’s job significantly impacts their livelihood but also how such action can breach their constitutional rights: specifically those pertaining life and liberty. The court upheld the dismissal, suggesting the consideration of back wages; however, it ultimately left this decision to employer's discretion indeed the appeal lacked merit.
CONCLUSION
The court, in its conclusion, upheld the dismissal of an intra-court appeal that challenged a reinstatement order for an employee previously dismissed. The court underscored natural justice's significance and pointed out how dismissing an employee without a fair inquiry violated their constitutional right to life and liberty. Recognizing there was still a pending criminal case against the said employee; consequently, it found no merit within this appeal. The court, in its reaffirmation of the commitment to fundamental rights and fair procedures in employment matters, advocated for consideration of back wages; it entrusted the employer with deciding a move that underscored justice and upheld constitutional principles.
