Supreme Court Orders Reinstatement with Modified Pay for KVS Employee: Mangilal Kajodia vs. Union of India (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 8 January 2020

Citation: Not available in the provided text.

Judges: Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

Can an employee be removed from service for not joining a transfer location? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in the case of Mangilal Kajodia vs. Union of India & Ors. The core issue revolved around the removal of a Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) employee for not joining his new posting and the subsequent legal battle for reinstatement. The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, heard the matter.

Case Background

Mangilal Kajodia, the petitioner, joined KVS on 05 November 1981. He was an office bearer of the employees’ association. He claimed to have exposed irregularities in school funds. On 05 May 2008, he was transferred from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Devas, M.P. to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kargil (J&K) and relieved on 06 May 2008. He did not join at Kargil. The KVS issued a show-cause notice on 03 July 2008 for not joining his new posting. On 21 July 2008, he was removed from service for not joining his new posting.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case refers to Article 81(d)(iii) of the KVS Educational Code, which deals with the loss of lien for unauthorized absence. The removal order also cites Article 81(d)(6) of the Education Code, which pertains to voluntary abandonment of service. The order also mentions Rule 7(ii) of the CCS Conduct Rules 1964, which applies to KVS employees, regarding conduct.

The relevant provisions are:

• Article 81(d)(iii) of the KVS Educational Code: Provisional loss of lien due to unauthorized absence.
• Article 81(d)(6) of the KVS Educational Code: Voluntary abandonment of service.
• Rule 7(ii) of the CCS Conduct Rules 1964: Conduct rules applicable to KVS employees.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that his removal was due to mala fides and was unfair.
• He contended that the removal order was unreasoned and contrary to the rules.
• He stated that not joining KVS Kargil was not a valid reason for removal or for treating his absence as abandonment of services.
• He argued that his joining time should have commenced after the summer vacation in Devas, which ended on 22 June 2008, and not immediately after his transfer on 06 May 2008. He relied on Rule 12(2) of the Joining Time Rules to support this.
• He argued that treating his absence as dies non was harsh, as it would lead to forfeiture of 12 years of service and related benefits.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The KVS contended that the petitioner had willfully violated the transfer orders by not joining at Kargil.
• The Central Government argued that not granting substantive benefits for the period of absence was not arbitrary.
• They highlighted that the petitioner did not approach the court in a timely manner.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The petitioner’s argument regarding the timing of his joining time, based on the vacation schedule of Devas and Kargil, was innovative and highlighted a procedural lapse in the transfer process.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the provided text. However, the main issue was whether the removal of the petitioner was justified and, if not, what relief should be granted.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any case laws or books. However, it refers to:

• Article 81(d) of the Educational Code applicable to the KVS: This article deals with the procedure for loss of lien and removal from service.
• Rule 12(2) of the Joining Time Rules: This rule was relied upon by the petitioner to argue that his joining time should have commenced after the summer vacation in Devas.
• Rule 7(ii) of the CCS Conduct Rules 1964: This rule was cited in the removal order as the basis for disciplinary action against the petitioner for his conduct.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Article 81(d) of the Educational Code applicable to the KVS: The court considered this provision to understand the procedure for removal but did not delve into its legality due to the delay in approaching the court.
• Rule 12(2) of the Joining Time Rules: The court acknowledged the petitioner’s reliance on this rule but did not make a direct finding on it.
• Rule 7(ii) of the CCS Conduct Rules 1964: The court noted that this rule was cited as the basis for disciplinary action against the petitioner.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The harshness of the removal order.
• The need to balance the interests of the employee and the employer.
• The delay in the petitioner approaching the court.
• The fact that the petitioner had a long service record.

The court’s reasoning was a mix of factual considerations (the circumstances of the transfer and the petitioner’s long service) and legal considerations (the rules and procedures governing the removal of employees). The court leaned towards a more equitable solution rather than a strict legal interpretation.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to reinstate the petitioner. The court ordered that the petitioner’s salary should be fixed by considering notional increments from 2009 onwards, ignoring the period of absence for pay fixation purposes. The court clarified that the petitioner would not be entitled to arrears of salary for the period he was out of service. The court also stated that this order should not disturb the benefits that had accrued to the petitioner during his service from 05 November 1981 to 21 June 2008. The court found the order of removal to be a harsh disciplinary measure. The court balanced the interests of the employee and the employer.

Key points from the judgment:

• “…the court had felt that the order of removal constituted a harsh disciplinary measure and that the petitioner could be meted a lighter penalty.”
• “…the position taken by the Central Government not to grant substantive benefit for the duration of absence cannot be per se termed harsh and arbitrary.”
• “…the interest of justice lies in suitably modifying the order proposed by the Central Government.”

Key Takeaways

• Reinstatement of employees is possible even if they have not joined their transfer location, especially if the removal order is deemed too harsh.
• The Supreme Court can modify orders of the Central Government to balance the interests of both parties.
• Employees who have been removed from service may be reinstated with modified pay, ensuring they are not placed at the same pay level as when they were removed.
• Delay in approaching the court may affect the extent of relief granted.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to:

• Issue an order reinstating the petitioner.
• Specify the terms of reinstatement and the place of posting.
• Grant the petitioner three weeks to join his post.
• Issue a pay fixation order in accordance with the court’s directions within four weeks.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that even if an employee has not joined their new posting, a removal order can be considered a harsh disciplinary measure, and the court can order reinstatement with modified pay. This case highlights the court’s willingness to intervene to ensure fairness and equity in service matters.

Conclusion

In the case of Mangilal Kajodia vs. Union of India & Ors., the Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of a KVS employee who was removed from service for not joining his new posting. While the court did not grant full back wages, it modified the Central Government’s order to ensure that the employee’s pay was fixed by considering notional increments, thereby balancing the interests of the employee and the employer. This decision underscores the court’s role in ensuring that disciplinary actions are not unduly harsh and that employees are treated fairly.