Statutory Provisions Must Prevail Over Executive Orders: High Court Rules Against State in Employee Strike Case

Calcutta High Court sets aside memoranda penalizing Dr. Silpa Bandyopadhyay for strike participation, citing violations of natural justice and constitutional rights.

In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court has ruled in favor of Dr. Silpa Bandyopadhyay, an upper division clerk penalized for participating in a strike on September 2, 2015. The court set aside the administrative orders and disciplinary actions taken against her, emphasizing that statutory provisions and regulations must supersede conflicting executive orders. This ruling highlights the judiciary’s stance on upholding constitutional rights and principles of natural justice.

Dr. Silpa Bandyopadhyay, employed by the West Bengal Board of Madrasah Education, faced disciplinary actions for her absence during a strike. Despite her explanation, her employer treated her absence as “dies non” (non-duty day) and imposed penalties without conducting a proper hearing. The administrative memoranda that led to these actions were challenged in court, arguing they violated her rights under Article 14 of the Constitution and the principles laid out in the West Bengal Board of Madrasah Education Act, 1994, and the corresponding regulations of 2015.

The court emphasized the primacy of statutory provisions over executive orders. Justice Rai Chattopadhyay stated, “Statutory provisions and regulations must prevail over executive orders. Any administrative order conflicting with statutory law and regulations is ultra vires and must be set aside.” The court referenced multiple precedents, including Sk. Nausad Rahman & Ors. Vs. Union of India, underscoring that executive instructions cannot override established laws.

The court found that Dr. Bandyopadhyay was penalized without being afforded an opportunity to be heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice. “Disciplinary actions must follow due process prescribed by relevant statutes and regulations, ensuring fair treatment,” Justice Chattopadhyay noted. The absence of a formal inquiry before imposing penalties was deemed a critical oversight.

Addressing the issue of discrimination, the court observed that granting special casual leave to employees who attended work during the strike, while penalizing those who participated in it, was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The judgment stated, “Such dissimilar treatment offends the guarantee of equality as envisaged under the Constitution.”

Justice Rai Chattopadhyay remarked, “In the context of Article 21, an invasion of privacy must be justified on the basis of a law that stipulates a procedure which is fair, just, and reasonable. The law and the procedure must also be valid concerning the encroachment on life and personal liberty.” This quote underlines the necessity for legal frameworks to respect fundamental rights.

The High Court’s decision to set aside the impugned memoranda and disciplinary actions against Dr. Bandyopadhyay reinforces the supremacy of statutory provisions over executive orders and underscores the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice. This ruling is expected to have a significant impact on how similar cases are handled in the future, ensuring that employees’ constitutional rights are protected against arbitrary administrative actions.

Date of Decision: July 05, 2024