Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
The other aspect of the matter which requires the consideration is the action of dismissing the petitioner from service on the ground that a criminal offence was registered against him under provisions of Sections 294, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. The criminal proceedings are said to be pending and the petitioner is yet to be convicted for the alleged offences. The resolution dated 25-3-2013 passed by the Gram Panchayat merely refers to the registration of aforesaid offence against the petitioner. Said resolution further indicates that there were deliberations on various other aspects pertaining to the services of the petitioner. As noted above, there was no show cause notice given to the petitioner with regard his unsatisfactory discharge of duties or his indulging in political activities. Therefore, it will have to be examined as to whether the respondent No.3 was justified in dismissing the petitioner from service underSection 61(1) of the said Act in the manner in which the same has been done.
10. It cannot be disputed that under provisions of Section 61(1) of the said Act the Gram Panchayat has the power to dismiss any servant appointed by it. There is no procedure prescribed in Section 61 of the said Act to indicate the manner in which a servant can be dismissed from service.
The act of dismissing a servant from services results in visiting such servant with civil consequences. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohindersingh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405 civil consequences would include everything that affects a citizen in his civil life. Reference can also be made to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 259. In para 11 thereof, it was observed thus:
"11. The law must therefore be now taken to be well-settled that procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood must meet the challenge of Article 14 and such law would be liable to be tested on the anvil of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by a statute or statutory rule or rules or orders affecting the civil rights or result in civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. So it must be be right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. There can be no distinction between a quasi-judicial function and an administrative function for the purpose of principles of natural justice. The aim of both administrative inquiry as well as the quasi- judicial inquiry is to arrive at a just decision and if a rule of natural justice is calculated to secure justice or to put it negatively, to prevent miscarriage of justice, it is difficult to see why it should be applicable only to quasi-judicial inquiry and not to administrative inquiry. It must logically apply to both."
Bombay High Court
Ashok Govindrao Sardar (Water ... vs The Chief Executive Officer, Z.P.
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
WRIT PETITION NO.2395 OF 2015
Citation:2016(2) ALLMR 413
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED: 29-01-2016
