Form Of Order Terminating Services Of Employee Is Not Its Final Determinant; Court Can Find Out The Real Reason & True Character Behind It: SC
The Supreme Court reiterated that form of an order terminating services is not its final determinant and the Court can find out the real reason and true character behind terminating/removing an employee.
In this case, the Court ordered continuation in service of an employee at par with other similarly situated employees, but with the back wages restricted to 50%.
The Court was dealing with a civil appeal filed by a woman against the final judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Division Bench by which it overruled the judgment of the Single Judge.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah remarked, “the form of an order is not its final determinant and the Court can find out the real reason and true character behind terminating/removing an employee.."
AOR Prashant Bhushan appeared for the appellant while Additional Advocate General Nachiketa Joshi appeared for the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The appellant was appointed by the respondent to the post of Assistant Project Coordinator (APC) under the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) on a contractual basis initially for one academic session (1 year), renewable in subsequent years for two years each “subject to evaluation of work in the first year.” As per the appellant, she received some information about alleged misconduct and immoral activity going on in the CWSN (Child with Special Needs) Girls’ Hostel, Sehore run by a non-governmental organization (NGO). The State Level Committee raided the hostel on a complaint made by the appellant and it found the allegations to be true eventually leading to termination of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the said NGO to run the hostel. Thereafter, the appellant was made in-charge of the hostel and an order was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Magistrate to the District Coordinator to lodge an FIR against the warden under whose supervision the alleged crime was committed in the hostel.
By an order, the charge of the hostel was withdrawn from the appellant after 5/6 days of assigning the same. She received show-cause notices (SCNs) and vide representation she stated that all tricks were being adopted for removing her from the post of APC. An order was passed deciding not to extend her contract on the ground of dereliction of duty. Being aggrieved, she filed a writ petition before the High Court and the same was allowed by the Single Bench. However, the Division Bench allowed the appeal of the official respondents and hence, she approached the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts directed, “In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the Impugned Judgment is quashed and set aside. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.06.2017 stands revived, however with a modification to the extent that the appellant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including notional continuation in service at par with other similarly-situated employees, but with the back wages restricted to 50%.”
The Court in view of the long passage of time, denied liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh against the appellant as was granted by the Single Judge. However, it clarified that this will not preclude the respondents from taking action against the appellant in accordance with law in futuro apropos her official duties on the post in question, if the situation so arises.
“The exercise be completed within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment”, it added.
Cause Title- Swati Priyadarshini v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 620)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Prashant Bhushan, Advocates Rahul Gupta, and Alice Raj.
Respondents: AAG Nachiketa Joshi, AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Advocates Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Mirza Kayesh Begg, Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Astik Gupta, Akanksha Tomar, Argha Roy, Ojaswini Gupta, Ruby, and Zartab Anwar.
