Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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

Latest Legal News