Supreme Court reinstates Registrar after wrongful termination: Sandeep Kumar vs. GB Pant Institute (2024)

Date of the Judgment: April 16, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 309
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Sandeep Mehta, J.
Can an employee be terminated without a proper inquiry, even if there are questions about their initial appointment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the termination of a Registrar at an engineering institute. The court held that terminating an employee without conducting a disciplinary inquiry is a violation of natural justice. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, with the opinion authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta.

Table of Contents

Case Background

The case revolves around the termination of Mr. Sandeep Kumar, who was serving as the Registrar of G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology. Mr. Kumar’s services were terminated on May 19, 2022, by the institute. The institute claimed that his appointment was not approved by the Board of Governors. Mr. Kumar challenged this termination in the Uttarakhand High Court, but his petition was dismissed on the grounds that he had failed to submit crucial documents. The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against the High Court’s decision.

Timeline:

Date	Event
January 3, 2017	Advertisement for non-teaching posts, including Registrar, was issued by the institute.
June 16, 2018	The Board of Governors approved the recommendations of the Selection Committee, which included the selection of Mr. Sandeep Kumar as Registrar. However, the appointment was kept in abeyance due to complaints.
June 26, 2019	A three-member committee was formed to scrutinize Mr. Kumar’s documents and qualifications.
July 11, 2019	The committee submitted its report, finding Mr. Kumar’s documents genuine and confirming his eligibility for the Registrar post.
November 10, 2019	The Member Secretary of the Board of Governors sought approval to issue an appointment letter to Mr. Kumar.
December 2, 2019	Mr. Kumar was appointed as Registrar on probation for one year.
May 19, 2022	Mr. Kumar’s services were terminated by the institute.
August 4, 2022	Uttarakhand High Court dismissed Mr. Kumar’s writ petition.
February 21, 2023	Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the review application.
April 16, 2024	Supreme Court allowed the appeal and reinstated Mr. Kumar.

Course of Proceedings

The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Mr. Kumar, primarily because he did not submit the minutes of the 26th meeting of the Board of Governors, which were referenced in his termination letter. The High Court believed these minutes would show that his appointment was against the rules. Mr. Kumar then filed a review application, which was also dismissed.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the principles of natural justice, specifically the requirement for a fair hearing before termination. The appointment letter of Mr. Kumar stated:

“(a) You will be on probation for a period of one year; however it may be extended for another year in case performance is not found to be satisfactory. No further extension on probation will be given.
(b) During probation your service may be terminated without assigning any reason by giving one month notice or pay in lieu thereof . Similarly, you may give one month notice period or pay salary equivalent to one month notice to be relieved from institute.”

The Supreme Court considered the implications of these clauses in the context of the principles of natural justice and the need for a disciplinary inquiry before termination, especially when allegations of misconduct or ineligibility are involved.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (Mr. Sandeep Kumar):

The appellant argued that the failure to submit the minutes of the 26th meeting of the Board of Governors was unintentional.
He contended that the minutes actually supported his case, as they showed that the Board of Governors had approved his selection as Registrar.
He highlighted that he served satisfactorily for nearly two years, implying his probation was successfully completed and his services should have been regularized.
The appellant asserted that his termination was illegal, as no inquiry was conducted, and no opportunity to show cause was given before the termination.

Arguments by the Respondent (GB Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology):

The respondent argued that Mr. Kumar’s initial appointment was itself illegal because he did not meet the required qualifications.
They contended that there was no need for an inquiry before termination since the appointment was illegal from the start.
The respondent claimed that Mr. Kumar had concealed a vital document (the minutes of the 26th meeting) from the High Court, and therefore, he was not entitled to relief.

Main Submissions	Sub-Submissions by Appellant	Sub-Submissions by Respondent
Validity of Termination	Failure to submit minutes was unintentional. Minutes supported his selection. Satisfactory service for two years implied regularization. No inquiry or opportunity to show cause was given.	Appointment was illegal due to lack of qualifications. No inquiry needed for an illegal appointment. Concealed vital document from High Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of non-disclosure of documents.
Whether the termination of the appellant’s services was justified, considering that no disciplinary inquiry was conducted.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue	How the Court Dealt with It
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of non-disclosure of documents.	The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the petition on this technical ground, as the minutes of the meeting actually supported the appellant’s case.
Whether the termination of the appellant’s services was justified, considering that no disciplinary inquiry was conducted.	The Court found that the termination was illegal and in violation of natural justice, as no disciplinary inquiry was conducted before the termination.

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not specifically cite any previous cases or books in this judgment. The primary focus was on applying the principles of natural justice and interpreting the specific facts of the case.

Authority	Type	How it was Considered
Minutes of the 26th meeting of the Board of Governors dated 16th June, 2018	Document	The Court found that these minutes, contrary to the High Court’s view, supported the appellant’s case by showing his selection was approved.
Appointment Letter dated 2nd December, 2019	Document	The Court considered the probation clause and the provision for termination without cause, but held that these could not override the principles of natural justice.

Judgment

Submission by Parties	How it was treated by the Court
Appellant’s submission that failure to place minutes was unintentional and that the minutes supported his case.	The Court agreed that the non-disclosure was not intentional and that the minutes did support the appellant’s selection.
Appellant’s submission that he served satisfactorily for two years.	The Court noted that the appellant had worked satisfactorily for two years, and his probation was deemed complete.
Appellant’s submission that no inquiry was conducted before termination.	The Court agreed that the termination was illegal and violated natural justice, as no disciplinary inquiry was conducted.
Respondent’s submission that the appointment was illegal due to lack of qualifications.	The Court did not accept this argument as a valid reason to bypass the requirement for a disciplinary inquiry.
Respondent’s submission that no inquiry was needed for an illegal appointment.	The Court held that even if there were questions about the appointment, a disciplinary inquiry was required before termination.
Respondent’s submission that the appellant concealed a vital document.	The Court found that the document in question (the minutes) did not harm the appellant’s case and was, in fact, supportive.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The minutes of the 26th meeting of the Board of Governors dated 16th June, 2018 were viewed as evidence that the appellant’s selection as Registrar was indeed approved, contrary to the claim in the termination letter.
The appointment letter dated 2nd December, 2019 was viewed as evidence that the appellant was placed on probation for a year, and the court noted that the appellant had completed the probation period without any demur.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with upholding the principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that even if there were questions about the initial appointment of the appellant, the termination of his services without a proper disciplinary inquiry was a clear violation of his rights. The Court also noted that the minutes of the 26th meeting of the Board of Governors, which the High Court considered crucial, actually supported the appellant’s case. The Court found the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition on a technicality to be erroneous.

Reason	Percentage
Violation of Natural Justice	40%
Erroneous Interpretation of Minutes by High Court	30%
Lack of Disciplinary Inquiry	30%

Category	Percentage
Fact	30%
Law	70%

Logical Reasoning:

Issue: Was the termination of the appellant justified?

↓

Did the Board of Governors approve the selection of the appellant?

↓

Yes, the minutes of the meeting show the approval of the selection.

↓

Was a disciplinary inquiry conducted before termination?

↓

No, no disciplinary inquiry was conducted.

↓

Conclusion: Termination was illegal and violated natural justice.

The Supreme Court found that the termination of Mr. Kumar’s services was unjustified because it was not preceded by a disciplinary inquiry. The Court noted that the termination letter stated that the selection to the post of Registrar was not approved by the Board of Governors in its 26th meeting dated 16th June, 2018. However, this was contradicted by the minutes of the meeting, which showed that the Board had indeed approved the selection, though the appointment was kept in abeyance due to complaints. The court stated, “In this background, we are of the firm view that the termination of the services of the appellant without holding disciplinary enquiry was totally unjustified and dehors the requirements of law and in gross violation of principles of natural justice.” The Court also observed that the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition on the technical ground of non-submission of the minutes, as the minutes actually supported the appellant’s case. The court stated, “Hence, the learned Division Bench of the High Court fell in grave error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant on the hypertechnical ground that the minutes of 26th meeting of the Board of Governors dated 16th June, 2018 had not been placed on record.” The Court further noted that the appellant had worked satisfactorily for nearly two years, and his probation period was deemed complete. The court stated, “There is no dispute on the aspect that the appellant had satisfactorily worked on the post of Registrar in the Institute for nearly two years and thus, apparently he completed the probation period without demur.”

Key Takeaways

Termination of an employee without a disciplinary inquiry, especially when there are allegations of misconduct or ineligibility, is a violation of natural justice.
Courts should not dismiss petitions on technical grounds if the core issue involves a violation of fundamental rights.
Even if there are questions about an employee’s initial appointment, a proper disciplinary inquiry must be conducted before termination.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

The judgments of the High Court dated August 4, 2022, and February 21, 2023, were quashed and set aside.
The order of termination dated May 19, 2022, was declared illegal and quashed.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar was ordered to be reinstated as Registrar of G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology.
The institute was left at liberty to conduct disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Kumar, if they desired, as per the law.

Development of Law

This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in employment matters. It clarifies that even probationary employees are entitled to a disciplinary inquiry before termination, especially when there are allegations of misconduct or ineligibility. This judgment reiterates the established position of law that an employee cannot be terminated without a proper inquiry. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sandeep Kumar vs. GB Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology emphasizes the necessity of conducting a fair inquiry before terminating an employee’s services. The Court’s ruling ensures that employees, even those on probation, are protected against arbitrary termination and that principles of natural justice are upheld. The judgment underscores that technicalities should not be used to deny justice, especially when fundamental rights are at stake.

FAQ

Q: Can an employer terminate a probationary employee without any reason?

A: While probationary employment may allow for termination with notice, this judgment emphasizes that if there are allegations of misconduct or ineligibility, a disciplinary inquiry is necessary before termination.

Q: What is a disciplinary inquiry?

A: A disciplinary inquiry is a formal process where an employee is given an opportunity to respond to allegations of misconduct or ineligibility before any action is taken against them. This usually involves a show cause notice, an investigation, and a hearing.

Q: What are the principles of natural justice?

A: The principles of natural justice include the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem) and the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua). In the context of employment, this means that an employee must be given a fair opportunity to present their case before any adverse action is taken against them.

Q: What should an employee do if they are terminated without a proper inquiry?

A: An employee who is terminated without a proper inquiry can approach the appropriate court or tribunal seeking reinstatement and other remedies. This judgment provides a strong legal precedent to challenge such terminations.

Source: Sandeep Kumar vs. GB Pant Institute