State Of H.P. & Another vs Dr. Narender Kumar Goel

L. Narayana Swamy, CJ

Original Application No. 1056 of 2015 was filed by the applicant-respondent herein, before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal Shimla, (for short 'the Tribunal') seeking therein the relief to direct the respondents-petitioners herein, to issue orders of posting in favour the applicant-respondent herein, and further to declare order dated 20.12.1997 regarding removal of the applicant-respondent from service as illegal, unconstitutional and void ab initio with all consequential benefits.

The aforesaid Original Application was allowed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 26.11.2015, (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned judgment'), whereby order dated 20.12.1997 was set aside and petitioners/State-respondents were directed to reinstate the respondent herein in service till his superannuation without back wages.

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to set the same.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent, who was working as Senior Medical Officer (Dental) at Regional Hospital Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, was sent on deputation to the Uttar Pradesh Government on 06.04.1994. While he was working as such with the U.P. Government, he developed some health problem and consequently, the U.P. Government relieved him. Thereafter, the respondent was supposed to report back to the H.P. Government, but due to some unavoidable circumstances and his health problem, he failed to do so within the time stipulated. Several notices were issued to him, which were also published in the newspapers, directing him to join his duties. Despite all this, the respondent did not join his duties.

Learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the petitioners submits that respondent was removed from service in terms of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, as it was not practicable to hold such inquiry against him. He prays that the impugned judgment be set aside.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that removal/dismissal from service/reduction in rank can be effected only after holding a proper inquiry against a delinquent in terms of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and if, for some reasons, the Authority decides not to hold an inquiry against a delinquent, he is required to be informed about his or her act of misconduct through reasons and as to why it was not practicable to hold inquiry. But in the present case, neither an inquiry was initiated against the respondent nor he was informed about the reasons of not holding an inquiry by the petitioners. He further submits that the Tribunal has rightly decided the Original Application in favour of the applicant/respondent and prays to uphold the same.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire file carefully.

In the Original Application, the petitioners have taken the ground that the respondent was removed from service in terms of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India as Clause (b) of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India provides that inquiry can be dispensed with, only if the same is impracticable to hold. The said ground taken by the petitioners is of no help to them as in the Original Application filed by the respondent before the Tribunal, it was submitted by him that he had developed some health problem, due to which he could not join his duty and after about 5-6 years when his condition improved, he came to know that a civil suit for recovery of bond amounting to Rs. 1.00 lac for not serving the State Government for five years after completion of his MDS degree had been filed against him by the petitioners in the Court of Sub Judge (1), Shimla, and when the respondent offered to serve the State Government, the said civil suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.08.2001.

Further, requirement of holding an inquiry may be dispensed with only in exceptional circumstances as provided under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and if for some reasons, the Authority decides not to hold an inquiry against a delinquent, he is required to be informed about his or her act of misconduct through reasons and as to why it was not practicable to hold inquiry.

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Dismissed as such. The petitioners are directed to comply with directions contained in the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal, within a period of three weeks from today. Since, the respondent has already retired from services, the petitioners are directed to release all monetary benefits in favour of the respondent within the aforesaid period, failing which, the respondent shall be entitled to admissible interest from today.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

Copy dasti.