CAUSE TITLE:
Swati Priyadarshini vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors
DATE OF ORDER:
August 22, 2024.
JUDGE(S):
Hon’ble Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah & Hon’ble Justice Hima Kohli
PARTIES:
Petitioner: Swati Priyadarshini
Respondent: The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
SUBJECT:
The Judgment was passed by a Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of the Country comprising of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on 22. 08. 2024 in the case of Swati Priyadarshini Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & others. etc., Civil Appeal No. 9758 of 2024 and it was noted that the Appellant’s termination was stigmatic, and this did not observe Clause 4 of the Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission (RGPSM’s) General Service Conditions. The Court noted that her termination stemmed from a process that commenced with the issuance of SCNs; and pointed out that the order had adverse consequences for implementation of her plans regarding her career in the future.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
Clause 4 of the RGPSM’s General Service Conditions
under the heading
“Resignation/Termination” provides as below:
“Persons working on contract can be terminated with one month notice if found inefficient. In case of persons found indulged in undesirable activities amounting to degradation of dignity of Mission, Mission Director shall reserve right to terminate him/her with immediate effect.”
BRIEF FACTS:
1) That Save and except for the Appeal mentioned above which was filed with the Apex Court by the appellant Swati Priyadarshini Righting the State of Madhya Pradesh Respondent No. 1, the Commissioner Rajya Shiksha Kendra Respondent No. 2, the Collector Respondent No. 3, B S Jamod Respondent No. 4 and Ashok Paradkar Respondent No. 5 challenging the validity of the Final 02. 2020 (Impugned Judgment) judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur (High Court) while dismissing the Writ Appeal No. 956/2017 and thereby reversing the Judgment dated 20. 06. 2017 delivered by the Learned Single judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No 8404/2013.
2) On 15. 10. 2012, The Respondent No. 4 appointed the sole Appellant as Assistant Project Coordinator (APC) of SSA as contractual post for one academic session 1year initially but renewable for the following two years’ term depending upon the performance of the year one.
3) The Appellant got information regarding some alleged misconducts and immoral activities going on in the CWSN (Children with Special Needs) Girls’ Hostel in Sehore run by Bright Star Social Society – a non-governmental organisation. The Appellant’s complaint made the State Level Committee to raid the hostel, proved the allegations, and withdraw the Memorandum of Understanding with the company Bright Star on 08. 01. 2013.
4) On 09. 01. Shift 2013 took charge of the hostel from the respondents. On 10. 01. It will be recalled that the Sub-Divisional Officer and Magistrate, Sehore issued a directive to the District Coordinator of the State Education Centre, Sehore, to report a First Information Report against the warden for the crimes aforesaid to have taken place in the hostel.
5) Moreover, it was only ever 5 or 6 days after the incident which happened on 14. 01. In 2013, the Appellant took up the responsibility of managing the hostel and this; Respondent No. 5 dropped the charge of the hostel. The Appellant received a Show-Cause Notice (SCN) which alleged that she had committed negligence, for having marked her attendance on 04. 01. 2013 and 05. 01. 2013, and for being late to work on the 14. 02. 2013. The Appellant responded on 16. 02. 2013 that, dismissed the attendance issue and said that she reached late because her daughter came from Bhopal but she come late for her duty but she completed her duties till late night.
6) On 15. 03. 2013, Respondent No. 4 issued another Show Cause Notice, listing several charges against the Appellant: failing to put names and signing for lists of physically challenged kids, interfering with appointment of volunteers or MRCs, failing to submit reports in regard to monitoring of CWSN hostels, allowing non-authorized person to access the hostels, living outside head office and reported frequently arriving late at work and signing on the attendance register. These charges the Appellant said were intended to force her out of the company she accused other officers of harassing her, and not co-operating with her in her work.
7) The Appellant responded to the SCN on 22., 03. In 2013, she made complaint of non-cooperation and mental harassment by other officers and further claimed that her character was being tainted by negative feedback.
8) On 30. 03. 2013, the Appellant’s contract was not renewed by Respondent No. 4 for being deemed to have performed dismally hitherto failing in his duties diligently. As for the order, it taught her that her contract was not going to be renewed beyond the 31. 03. 2013.
9) Deep driven by frustration the appellant preferred Writ Petition No. 8404/ 2013 under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Hon’ble High Court to challenge the order dated 30. 03. 2013. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition on June 20, 2017, to quash the termination order because it was stigmatic in relation to the putative misconduct involving moral turpitude in circumstances which warranted a regular inquiry.
10) Not satisfied with the Single Judge’s decision the official Respondents filed Writ Appeal No 956 of 2017 before the Division Bench under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay peeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. The Division Bench allowed the Appeal on 03. 02. 195 Amidst the heightened tensions of the year 2020 the Appellant decided to appeal this decision.
HIGH COURT:
Thus, the Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 8404/2013 the above-mentioned termination Order passed on 30. 03. 2013, to hold that the termination was not the conduct prohibited by law because if it was stigmatic and based on allegations of moral turpitude then the employer would have to go through a regular inquiry before the termination could be effected. However, on 03. 02. 2020 the Division Bench struck Writ Appeal No. 956/2017 filed by the official Respondents to the extent of quashing the Single Judge decision and thereby provided justification for the termination order while not in ascent with the Single Judge observation regarding necessity of an inquiry.
SUPREME COURT:
Disturbed by the effect of High Court order dated 03-02-2020, the Appellant filed Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11685 of 2021 in Supreme Court. The Apex Court vide Order dated 22. 08. 2024 held as follows:
QUESTIONS RAISED:
- Whether the firing of the Appellant’s services was a non-renewal of his/ her contract and therefore not tainted with moral taint.
- Whether it met the provisions of Clause 4 of the RGPSM’s General Service Conditions that provided for efficiency and undesirable considerations to have different processes of termination or dismissal.
- If procedural rules for a termination, namely the regular inquiry in a case of stigmatic termination or the requirement of the notice in case of inefficiency have been complied with.
- Whether the termination impacted the Appellant’s future with any untoward career implications or not and whether the termination was a penalty that enforces strict legal and procedural measures to be complied with.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:
- At the outset, the Supreme Court mentioning that the Division Bench has interfered with the Single Judge’s judgment was incorrect decided the matter as follows.
- The Court stated that the Appellant’s termination order which was on 30. 03. 2013 was also an issue based on the Clause 4 of the RGPSM, General Service Conditions. This clause allow for dismissal for “undesirable activities” and no termination period is necessary but inefficiency can be dealt with under one month’s notice which has not been followed.
- The Court also noted that the Division Bench has failed to give sufficient attention to such aspects as the nature of the termination order as well as the SCNs issued. The Supreme Court cited common wisdom which stated that the form of an order does not determine the nature of the order and one has to look at the true rationale behind the termination. Having analyzed these principles, the Court noted that the termination had stigmatic consequences and was not completed in accordance with the contractual terms.
- Accordingly, the Supreme Court has restored the Single Judge’s judgment with necessary changes i. e., the Appellant has been granted consequential benefits as well as the back wages limited to 50%. The Court also restrained the Respondents from searching for new legal ground to institute fresh proceeding against the Appellant; but allowed the Respondents to take any further action in the future if necessary, in line with the law.
CONCLUSION
Given the above-discussed facts, the Supreme Court held that the Division Bench has erred in law. The Court held that the termination order dated 30. 03. 2013 was within the category of orders that are stigmatic and that certain procedural safeguards have to be followed in the matter and one of them being the regular inquiry. The termination of the employment contract did not follow the provisions of the Clause 4 of the RGPSM’s General Service Conditions which states that inefficiency requires a notice while immediate action for undesirable activates is required and this had effects on the employment possibilities of the Appellant in the future positions.
Therefore, the Court review the Single Judge Struck-off its consequential benefits award to the Appellant and reduced the back wage to 50%. The Respondents could not start new cases against the Appellant but could take further processes as it may be necessary to proceed.
