SANDEEP KUMAR [APPELLANT(S)] Vs. GB PANT INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY GHURDAURI & ORS. [RESPONDENT(S)]
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 8788-8789 of 2023)
(2JB, B.R. GAVAI and SANDEEP MEHTA JJ., delivered by Mehta, J.)
Facts: The instant appeals are directed against the judgments dated 4th August, 2022 and 21st February, 2023 passed by the learned Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in Writ Petition(S/B) No. 395 of 2022 and MCC Review Application No. 4 of 2022 in Writ Petition(S/B) No. 395 of 2022, respectively.
Issue: Whether the termination of an employee’s services without holding a disciplinary enquiry is justified?
Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:
Shri Gautam Narayan, learned counsel representing the appellant urged that the failure of the petitioner (appellant herein) to place on record the aforesaid minutes was neither intentional nor malafide. He referred to the minutes of the meeting dated 16th June, 2018 placed on record of the instant appeals as Annexure P-8 and urged that as a matter of fact, these minutes support the case of the appellant because the Board of Governors of the Institute approved the recommendations of the Selection Committee, and thereby, selected the appellant as the Registrar of the Institute.
Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents:
Per contra, Shri Amit Anand Tiwari, learned Senior counsel representing the respondents, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel. He urged that the very appointment of the appellant on the post of Registrar was illegal because he did not possess the requisite qualifications as per the rules. He thus, urged that there was no requirement to hold a regular enquiry before terminating the services of the appellant. His contention was that the appellant concealed a vital document in the writ petition filed before the High Court and thus, he was not entitled to equitable relief in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
Held: The court allowed the present appeal and held that, “In this background, we are of the firm view that the termination of the services of the appellant without holding disciplinary enquiry was totally unjustified and dehors the requirements of law and in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the learned Division Bench of the High Court fell in grave error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant on the hyper technical ground that the minutes of 26th meeting of the Board of Governors dated 16th June, 2018 had not been placed on record.”
