The Supreme Court has ordered the reinstatement of an Indian Foreign Service probationer, holding that his services could not be terminated on grounds of misconduct without any enquiry.
“Having regard to the consistent view taken by this court that if an order of discharge [from service] of a probationer is passed as a punitive measure, without giving him an opportunity of defending himself, the same will be invalid and liable to be quashed,” said a Bench of Justices Altamas Kabir, J.M. Panchal and Cyriac Joseph.
Writing the judgment, Justice Kabir said: “If discharge is based upon misconduct or if there is a live connection between the allegations of misconduct and discharge, then the same, even if couched in language which is not stigmatic, will amount to a punishment for which a departmental enquiry is imperative.”
In the instant case, Mahaveer C. Singhvi, who was appointed to the IFS in September 1999, was discharged from service on June 13, 2002 without any reason being assigned. He was given to understand that he was sacked for alleged misconduct, but no enquiry was held. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his application. He went in appeal before the Delhi High Court, which ordered his reinstatement.
Dismissing the appeal by the Union of India against this judgment, with Rs. 25,000 in costs payable to the respondent, the Bench said the then External Affairs Minister appeared to have taken an active interest in a complaint made by Mrs. Narinder Kaur Chadha. But nothing was found against the respondent in enquiries. Still Jayant Prasad, Joint Secretary (CNV), said he had no doubt that the respondent would blacken the country's name.
“There is absolutely no material on record to support such an observation made by a responsible official in the Ministry, which clearly discloses the prejudice of the authorities concerned against the respondent,” the Bench said.
Foundation for the decision
The decision to discharge the respondent was not based on suspicion alone, but it was all done behind his back. The alleged misconduct was not merely the motive but was also clearly the foundation for the decision.
Declining to interfere with the High Court judgment, the Bench granted the government one month to comply with its directions.
