Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court set aside the removal of a Forest Guard who was dismissed from service without a departmental inquiry. Despite a considerable delay in challenging the dismissal, the Court held that “if the order of removal is patently illegal, the delay cannot be the sole ground to deny relief.” The impugned order of removal was quashed, and the appellants were directed to reinstate the dismissed employee with continuity of service but without back wages.
Facts:
The appellant was appointed as a Forest Guard in 1984. In 1987, he was served with a show-cause notice regarding alleged unauthorized absence and was subsequently dismissed from service by the Divisional Forest Officer without conducting any departmental inquiry. The appellant challenged this removal before the State Public Services Tribunal, which initially dismissed the claim on the ground of delay. Upon appeal, the High Court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal, which then ruled in favour of the appellant, holding the dismissal illegal due to lack of inquiry. However, the State again challenged the order, and the High Court, this time, reversed the Tribunal’s decision, holding that the delay was fatal and the removal was justified.
Issues:
- Whether a dismissal from service without a departmental inquiry can be sustained under Article 311(2) of the Constitution?
- Whether the delay in filing a claim against such dismissal justifies denial of relief?
- Whether the High Court erred in reversing the Tribunal’s order despite the admitted illegality in the disciplinary process?
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The appellant contended that his removal was ex-facie illegal as it was effected without holding any departmental inquiry in clear violation of Article 311(2). He further submitted that the State itself had admitted this illegality and had passed a fresh show cause notice in 1995 acknowledging the prior mistake. Therefore, the delay in challenging the dismissal should not defeat his substantive right against an illegal order.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The State argued that the appellant remained absent from duty for years and that the delay in filing the claim—over a decade after the order of removal—was gross and unexplained. They contended that principles of delay and laches should bar any relief. Moreover, they claimed that the appellant had accepted the order of removal and only approached the Tribunal much later under pressure of unemployment.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court analysed the mandatory requirement under Article 311(2) of the Constitution, which provides that no government servant shall be dismissed without an inquiry. The removal order, having been passed without such inquiry, was found to be in breach of constitutional safeguards. The Court also examined the concept of laches and delay, holding that it is a discretionary principle and must be applied cautiously when fundamental rights and illegal actions are involved.
Precedent Analysis:
The Court relied heavily on its judgment in State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, (1997) 10 SCC 685, which held that even in cases of long delay, if the order is void for breach of principles of natural justice, relief can still be granted. It also cited M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628, to reiterate that illegality cannot be perpetuated merely on grounds of delay. Additionally, the Court referenced Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, where it held that a continuing wrong resulting in denial of legal right can be redressed even after long passage of time if there is no third-party prejudice.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Supreme Court observed that the removal was clearly illegal, as it was not preceded by a departmental inquiry as mandated under Article 311(2). The Court further noted that the delay, though substantial, was not a sufficient ground to deprive the appellant of his fundamental rights. It stated:
“Once the Court finds that the removal is void ab initio and not in accordance with law, then mere delay cannot be used to legitimise such an order.”
The Court also clarified that granting relief without back wages strikes a balance between equity and public interest, particularly in service matters where the employer might have had to make alternate arrangements.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the order passed by the State Tribunal declaring the appellant’s dismissal illegal. It directed reinstatement with continuity of service but denied back wages to balance equities. The judgment reaffirmed that procedural fairness and adherence to constitutional safeguards in service law cannot be sacrificed at the altar of delay, especially when the order of removal is void.
Implications:
This ruling underscores the constitutional protection under Article 311 and reiterates that illegal dismissals cannot be sustained merely due to procedural delay in approaching courts. It offers hope to employees wrongfully removed without inquiry, reinforcing that substance must prevail over procedural technicalities. The judgment also sets a precedent that even long-standing removals may be challenged if they are patently illegal.
Cases Referred and Their Relevance:
- State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, (1997) 10 SCC 685 – Relief granted despite long delay due to patently illegal dismissal.
- M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628 – Delay cannot validate an illegal act.
- Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 – Continuing wrong can justify delayed challenge.
- Narendra Kumar Chandla v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 460 – Dismissal without inquiry void under Article 311.
FAQs:
Q1. Can a government employee be dismissed without a departmental inquiry?
No, Article 311(2) of the Constitution mandates that a government employee cannot be dismissed without a fair inquiry unless specific exceptions apply.
Q2. Is delay a valid ground to deny relief in service dismissal cases?
Not when the dismissal is patently illegal. Courts may still grant relief despite delay if the removal violated constitutional or statutory protections.
Q3. Will reinstatement be accompanied by back wages in such cases?
Not necessarily. Courts may reinstate employees with continuity of service but deny back wages to balance equity and protect public interest.
