Allahabad High Court dismisses Petition where no Departmental Inquiry preceded the Termination Order

Must Read

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years...

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA)....

Follow us

On 29.12.1999, the Vice-President and the Head of the Establishment were murdered inside the factory premises. To identify those involved in the murder, the establishment constituted a committee. Sri Ajay Sharma, who conducted the Inquiry, submitted his report on 21.1.2000. The report identified Respondent Pramod Kumar along with Ajay Kumar, as the culprits.

Petitioner passed the Order for termination of services on 27.1.2000. Following the same, the Respondent raised an industrial dispute, on 20.12.2002, at Meerut. After the murder, the police had also, submitted a charge-sheet on 29.2.2000 and initiated a Sessions Trial. Later the Court released the Respondent on bail on 16.5.2000. After the completion of the trial, the Respondent was acquittal by the Court, on 28.5.2002.

Contentions of the Petitioner 

The Petitioner argues that: 

The Petitioner cannot retain the Respondent as they lack confidence in him now and also had held him involved in the murder. That despite the acquittal by the Court, it did not warrant re-employment by the Petitioner.

Further, the fact that the Respondent absconded, further proved his mens rea or guilty mind, which is also an important factor to keep in mind. The Petitioner went on to argue that the Respondent has been out of service for the past 21 years. It is hard to re-employ the Respondent in the Petitioners establishment because he has been out of service for long.

The Petitioner also says that departmental inquiry and a criminal trial are two different spheres altogether. The inquiry was based on the doctrine of “preponderance of probabilities”.  But, a criminal trial is based on different considerations altogether.  Thus, the acquittal of the Respondent was not honourable but was one based on a benefit of the doubt. In a Criminal Trial, there is a benefit of the doubt, and a single doubt results in the acquitting of the Offender, just as in this case.  

 Contentions of the Respondent

The Respondent argues that:

That the Petitioner did not conduct a full-fledged inquiry. The Petitioner should have conducted it as the Respondent is a permanent employee. Further, they didn’t conduct a departmental inquiry before withdrawing the Services of the Respondent. Moreover, the Petitioner’s “Lack of confidence” is not a valid ground as there were no such activities done.

Held 

The High Court held that no interference was necessary in this writ petition. That the termination of the Respondent’s employment was due to his involvement in the trial and criminal case. Besides, an Involvement in a criminal trial constituted a serious offence under the Standing Orders. The Petitioners’ order of termination had stated that on account of the nature of the offence, it was not possible to conduct any domestic inquiry against the Respondent. Therefore they didn’t conduct the inquiry.

A perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court proved that the acquittal was based on a correct assessment of the evidence. The Court noted that the Petitioner’s contention of the acquittal order being dishonourable was fallacious. Also, the acquittal had not resulted on account of the fact that there was no evidence, or due to foul play. Additionally, the Court reiterated that the acquittal was a result of insufficient evidence.

The Petitioner gave the termination order due to the criminal trial. To that end, there is no occasion for the petitioner to pray for a domestic inquiry. Thus, the order of termination could not be sustained. Hence, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner relating to foul play was dismissed.

The Court accordingly dismissed the Petition.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -