Dismissal from job sans inquiry 'stigmatic': CG HC

Raipur: Raipur: Taking unauthorised leave for his wedding during his probation period proved costly for a peon at Balod district court — he was sacked after returning from a 20-day absence. After a nine-year-long legal battle, he has now got back his job.

Chhattisgarh high court, in a recent order, held that the termination of Rajesh Kumar Deshmukh was "ex facie stigmatic", as it was issued without a regular departmental inquiry. It quashed the termination order, and ordered the district court to reinstate him with 50% back wages.

Deshmukh was appointed as a peon on May 1, 2014, and placed on two-year probation as a Class IV employee from April 7, 2016. He applied for seven days' earned leave from April 27-May 7, 2016, for his wedding, scheduled on April 28–29. However, his leave request was rejected, with instructions from the Balod district and sessions judge to instead apply separately for three days.

Deshmukh went AWOL from April 24 to May 12. A showcause notice was issued to him on May 27, 2016. In his reply, he claimed he was unaware of the rejection of his leave application and tendered an apology.

His services were terminated on June 22, 2016, on grounds of unauthorised absence and leaving the headquarters — acts deemed as gross negligence under Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, and CG Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961.

Deshmukh challenged his dismissal through counsels R K Kesharwani and Ajita Kesharwani. The case was heard by the single bench of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal.

During arguments, his counsels contended that a probationer cannot be terminated without a proper inquiry into the allegations. This was a violation of principles laid down by Supreme Court in Vijayakumaran C.P.C. v. Central University of Kerala & Others, they said.

HC observed that the termination order labelled Deshmukh as ‘grossly negligent' for his absence and for admitting that he was not residing at the headquarters. However, it noted that the showcause notice only addressed the issue of unauthorised leave, not his place of residence. The court held that declaring Deshmukh guilty without an inquiry or offering an opportunity to be heard would harm his career, rendering the termination ‘stigmatic'.

Setting aside the dismissal and ordering his reinstatement, the court clarified that entitlement to back wages would depend on any future action taken by the competent authority. However, it said that if no fresh inquiry is initiated, Deshmukh would be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement.