The Supreme Court of India has held that dismissing an employee based on a charge that was never mentioned in the show-cause notice is fundamentally improper and violates the principles of natural justice. The Court ruled that such disciplinary actions are unsustainable, as they deprive the employee of the right to defend themselves against specific allegations. The judgment came in a case concerning the dismissal of teachers in Jharkhand who had been appointed as Intermediate Trained Teachers but were later terminated on grounds not originally cited in the show-cause notices issued to them.
The controversy began when the appellants were appointed to teaching posts after fulfilling the selection process. Subsequently, they received show-cause notices alleging that they had failed to meet the minimum qualifying marks required for eligibility. The teachers responded, explaining that they belonged to the Scheduled Tribe category and were thus entitled to a relaxation in the cutoff percentage, which they had duly met. However, instead of considering their response or determining eligibility based on the stated grounds, the employer introduced a completely new charge in the final dismissal order. The new allegation stated that if the vocational subject marks were excluded, the candidates did not achieve the minimum qualifying marks. This charge was not mentioned in the show-cause notice, nor were the employees given an opportunity to respond to it before being dismissed.
The affected employees challenged their dismissal before the Jharkhand High Court. A Single Judge ruled in their favor, finding that the action of the employer violated procedural fairness and basic principles of justice. However, a Division Bench of the High Court later reversed that decision, upholding the dismissal orders. Dissatisfied with the outcome, the teachers approached the Supreme Court, arguing that they had been punished for an allegation that was never formally made against them and that the entire disciplinary process was arbitrary.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K.V. Viswanathan agreed with the appellants, strongly criticizing the conduct of the authorities. The Court observed that the employees were found guilty of a charge they had never been asked to defend, which amounted to a serious violation of the right to a fair hearing. The bench reiterated that no person can be penalized for an offence or misconduct that they were not specifically informed about in advance. It noted that the appellants had successfully answered the charge mentioned in the show-cause notice but were dismissed based on a new ground introduced later, which was unjust and procedurally flawed.
The Supreme Court, therefore, set aside the orders of dismissal and directed the reinstatement of the appellants. It ordered that they be treated as being in continuous service from the date of their original appointment and entitled to full arrears of pay and seniority benefits. However, the Court clarified that the period during which they did not actually serve would not be counted as experience for promotional purposes, since experience could only be gained through actual work.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that disciplinary proceedings must adhere strictly to principles of natural justice. Any punishment imposed on grounds not communicated to the accused employee is arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law. The ruling reinforces the judiciary’s consistent stance that fairness and transparency are indispensable in administrative and employment-related decision-making processes.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.