Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, J. Sam Christudhas, was appointed as an Attender on compassionate grounds on 12.02.1987 in the Marthandam Bee Keepers Co-operative Society Ltd. (6th respondent). He was later promoted to Junior Assistant in 1996. On 04.05.2014, due to heavy rainfall, a wall of the adjacent YMCA building collapsed onto the godown of the society, damaging 22 drums of honey (13,680 kg). The society was insured with United India Insurance Company. The insurance surveyor assessed the damage. After a delay of about 7 years, on 24.07.2019, the petitioner was placed under suspension. A charge memo was issued on 30.07.2019 alleging negligence. An enquiry officer was appointed, but the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses, and documents were not supplied. The enquiry officer submitted a report holding the charges proved. The 5th respondent (Board of Directors) passed a removal order on 29.07.2021, which was confirmed by the 6th respondent (President) on 31.08.2021. The petitioner challenged these orders by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court found that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, and the documents relied upon were not furnished to him. The enquiry was conducted ex parte without proper notice. The court held that the removal orders were unsustainable and set them aside. The court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and 50% back wages, along with other attendant benefits. The court also imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on the respondents.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Violation of Natural Justice - The petitioner was removed from service without a proper enquiry, without being given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and without supply of relevant documents. The court held that the entire disciplinary proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with principles of natural justice. (Paras 1-14) B) Service Law - Termination - Enquiry without Evidence - The respondents failed to conduct a proper enquiry and relied on a report without any evidence. The court held that the removal order was arbitrary and liable to be set aside. (Paras 8-12) C) Service Law - Reinstatement - Back Wages - The court directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and 50% back wages, considering the long service of the petitioner and the fact that the proceedings were initiated after a delay of 7 years. (Paras 13-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the removal of the petitioner from service by the 5th respondent dated 29.07.2021, confirmed by the 6th respondent on 31.08.2021, is valid and sustainable in law, given the alleged violation of principles of natural justice and lack of proper enquiry.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the removal orders dated 29.07.2021 and 31.08.2021, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and 50% back wages, along with other attendant benefits. The court also imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on the respondents.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- disciplinary proceedings
- enquiry without evidence
- violation of principles of natural justice
- writ jurisdiction under Article 226
- termination without proper enquiry
- non-supply of documents
- ex parte enquiry without notice
- setting aside removal order
- reinstatement with back wages
