Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Balbhim Sureshrao Tapse, applied for the post of peon in the District Court, Beed, pursuant to an advertisement. He was appointed and joined service. Subsequently, the Principal District Judge, Beed, issued a communication dated 15.5.2009 discontinuing his services on the ground that his father's name in the school leaving certificate was 'Suryakantrao' whereas in the revenue record it was 'Suryakant', alleging misrepresentation. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court observed that the discrepancy in the father's name was minor and could have been clarified. The petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before the order of discontinuance was passed. The court held that the order violated principles of natural justice and was arbitrary. The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned communication, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and consequential benefits. The court also imposed costs of Rs. 5,000 on the respondents.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination - Natural Justice - Discrepancy in Father's Name - The petitioner was appointed as a peon in District Court, Beed. His services were discontinued on the ground that his father's name in the school leaving certificate was 'Suryakantrao' whereas in the revenue record it was 'Suryakant'. The court held that the discrepancy was not a misrepresentation and the termination without giving an opportunity of hearing violated principles of natural justice. (Paras 2-6) B) Service Law - Appointment - Verification of Documents - Duty of Employer - The employer is expected to verify documents at the time of appointment. If there is any discrepancy, the employee must be given a chance to explain before any adverse action. (Para 5) C) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - The High Court can interfere with an order that is passed in violation of natural justice and is arbitrary. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the discontinuance of the petitioner's services as a peon on the ground of discrepancy in his father's name in school and revenue records, without affording an opportunity of hearing, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned communication/order dated 15.5.2009 passed by Respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity and all consequential benefits. The respondents shall pay costs of Rs. 5,000 to the petitioner.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Audi alteram partem
- Termination without notice
- Discrepancy in name
- Misrepresentation
