Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Jitendra Srivastava, was appointed as Joint Director (Administration) by the second respondent to manage personnel, administration, finance, and accounts of the first respondent Foundation. He was subjected to two departmental inquiries resulting in two punishment orders: one withholding three increments and another reducing his basic pay for two years. Subsequently, the first respondent abolished the post he held via a resolution and office order dated 14 May 1999. The petitioner challenged these actions under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking reinstatement with back wages and setting aside the punishment orders. The court examined whether the abolition of post was mala fide and whether the disciplinary proceedings violated natural justice. The petitioner argued that the abolition was a colourable exercise to victimize him, but the court found no evidence of mala fides. The court held that the employer has the prerogative to abolish a post in bona fide exercise of its powers, and such decisions are not subject to judicial review unless mala fides or victimization is proved. Regarding the punishment orders, the court noted that they were passed after due inquiry and in compliance with natural justice, and the writ court cannot re-appreciate evidence. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the abolition of post and the punishment orders.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Abolition of Post - Employer's Prerogative - The employer has the right to abolish a post in bona fide exercise of its powers, and such decision is not subject to judicial review unless mala fides or victimization is proved. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish any mala fides or that the abolition was a colourable exercise of power. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Natural Justice - The punishment orders withholding increments and reducing basic pay were passed after due inquiry and in compliance with principles of natural justice. The court found no procedural irregularity warranting interference under Article 226. (Paras 2-8) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The High Court in writ jurisdiction does not sit as an appellate authority over disciplinary matters and cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is perversity or violation of natural justice. The court declined to interfere with the findings of the inquiry. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the abolition of the petitioner's post was mala fide and whether the punishment orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The order abolishing the post and the punishment orders are upheld.
Law Points
- Abolition of post is an employer's prerogative
- not subject to judicial review unless mala fides or victimization is established
- Disciplinary proceedings must comply with principles of natural justice
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not for adjudicating disputed questions of fact
