Executing Court Must Conduct Full-Fledged Inquiry Under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC When Third-Party Objects To Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Lapse Of University Cannot Penalize Student By Denying Verification Of Academic Credentials: Supreme Court Professional Colleges Cannot Effect Mid-Course Fee Hikes; Fee Must Be Determined Before Admission Under AICTE Regulations: Supreme Court Compromise Decrees Under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC Must Be Given Full Effect, Courts Cannot Ignore Binding Settlements: Supreme Court Auction Of Public Resources | Rejection Of Highest Bid Requires Material Demonstrating Current Inadequacy And Cannot Rely Merely On Earlier Higher Bids: Supreme Court Section 19 PMLA | 'Immediately' In Section 19(2) Does Not Prescribe Fixed Timeline For Forwarding Arrest Material To Adjudicating Authority: Supreme Court Labour Court Must Grant Employer Opportunity To Lead Fresh Evidence After Domestic Inquiry Is Declared Unfair: Allahabad High Court Prosecution Permitted To Produce Additional Documents Under Section 242 CrPC Even At Trial Stage To Ensure Truth: Andhra Pradesh High Court Income Tax Act | Generation Of Surplus Does Not Disqualify Hospital From Philanthropic Exemption If Funds Are Applied To Charitable Objects: Bombay High Court Commercial Courts Act 2015 | Pre-Litigation Mediation Under Section 12A Is Not Mandatory In Urgent IP Infringement Suits: Delhi High Court Section 138 NI Act | Defence Witnesses Are Entitled To Equal Weightage As Prosecution Witnesses To Rebut Statutory Presumptions: Himachal Pradesh High Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Sessions Court Cannot Sentence Accused To Life Imprisonment 'Till Death' To Bar Remission Under Section 432 CrPC; Only Constitutional Courts Can: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail | Merely Because Criminal Culpability Cannot Be Ruled Out In Civil Dispute, Pre-Arrest Bail Need Not Be Cancelled If Accused Cooperated: Supreme Court Section 498A IPC | Asking Daughter-In-Law To Do Household Chores Like Washing Clothes & Utensils Does Not Amount To 'Cruelty': Bombay High Court Investigation By Subordinate When SHO Is Informant Vitiates Trial For IPC Offences & Section 25 Arms Act: Allahabad High Court Section 125 CrPC | Adverse Finding Of Adultery Cannot Be Recorded Against Specifically Named Co-Adulterer Without Giving Opportunity Of Hearing: Allahabad High Court Section 306 IPC | Instigation Can Be Inferred From Continued Harassment, Absence Of Suicide Note No Ground For Discharge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 54 Wakf Act | Long Possession Confers No Right To Continue In Occupation If Encroachment Is Unauthorized: Himachal Pradesh High Court Special Court Cannot Direct Reinvestigation Under Guise Of Further Investigation When Accused Exonerated In Departmental Probe: J&K&L High Court Section 138 NI Act | Arraigning Company As Accused Imperative To Prosecute Managing Director Or Signatory: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 16(4) | Pre-Conversion Caste Backwardness Cannot Be Transposed Post-Conversion To Islam To Claim BC Muslim Reservation: Supreme Court

Unsatisfactory and Not Conducive’ Working Not Ground for Stigmatic Termination: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Termination of Warder

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court, on February 28, 2024, has set aside the termination order of a warder, Mr. Virender, employed by the Government of NCT of Delhi. The Court ruled that the grounds of “unsatisfactory and not conducive” working, as stated in the termination order, cannot justify a stigmatic termination without adherence to principles of natural justice.

The respondent, Mr. Virender, appointed as a warder and on probation, faced termination following an FIR lodged under the NDPS Act. The termination order, dated April 24, 2017, cited his services as “unsatisfactory and not conducive to the job requirements.” Challenging the order, Virender approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which ruled in his favor, leading to the current petition by the Government of NCT of Delhi.

The crux of the matter revolved around whether the termination order, citing unsatisfactory performance without a formal inquiry, amounted to a stigmatic and punitive action against the warder.

The Court, led by Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, observed that termination for “unsatisfactory and not conducive” performance is not envisaged under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and therefore, cannot form the basis for a punitive action without a formal inquiry. Justice Rao noted, “Mere pendency of an FIR shall not preclude the employer from initiating disciplinary proceedings… the same needs to be proved on the principles of preponderance of probability.”

The High Court directed the reinstatement of Mr. Virender with all consequential benefits, in line with the relevant rules. However, it granted liberty to the petitioners to initiate disciplinary action in accordance with conduct rules, independent of the outcome of the ongoing FIR.

Date of Decision: February 28, 2024

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs. Virender

Latest Legal News