New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that directly sending the representations to the High Court and the Chief Minister/Minister cannot amount to major misconduct for which punishment of termination from service should be imposed, while reinstating a Class-IV court employee.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra said a charge against Chatrapal, the appellant, concerns directly sending the representations to the Allahabad High Court and the Chief Minister/Minister without routing the same through proper channels.
"In this regard, it is suffice to observe that a Class-IV employee, when in financial hardship, may represent directly to the superior but that by itself cannot amount to major misconduct for which punishment of termination from service should be imposed," said the bench, in a judgment delivered on February 15.
The bench noted that the appellant has cited examples of other employees of the district court, Bareilly who have sent representations directly to the superiors, but no action has been taken against them.
The top court set aside termination of Chatrapal, a Class IV employee of a district court in Uttar Pradesh in 2007, on the basis of false allegations of bribery and caste discrimination and sending a representation directly to the High Court and the CM.
The bench said it is trite law that ordinarily the findings recorded by the inquiry officer should not be interfered with by the appellate authority or by the writ court. However, when the finding of guilt recorded by the inquiry officer is based on perverse finding the same can always be interfered, it said.
It was claimed that the appellant vide communication dated June 5, 2003, had used inappropriate, derogatory and objectionable language and made false allegations against the officers including the district judge as well as against the presiding officer of Aonla court.
"The finding of making false statements and allegations in his representation dated June 5, 2003, is not borne out from the record. Since, this finding is the fulcrum of the reasoning to hold that charge no. 1 is proved, in our considered view, this finding in the inquiry report is perverse," said the bench.
The bench said it is significant to notice that the appellant himself has not made any such allegation and in the said letter, he stated that it was the Central Nazir, who told him that the district judge is saying that the appellant is a Harijan employee, and he hates the people of such community.
"Thus, it is clear that the appellant himself has not made any such allegation against the District Judge but it was the Central Nazir who made that statement," said the bench. The top court set aside the judgment of the High Court dated April 30, 2007 whereby the appellant was terminated from service.
"Consequently, the appellant is reinstated in service with all consequential benefits," said the bench, allowing the appellant's appeal.
- " class="align-text-top noRightClick twitterSection" data="">
