MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

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

07 May 2024 8:19 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

Similar News