LI Network
Published on: February 16, 2024 at 12:40 IST
The Supreme Court, set aside the dismissal of a Class-IV court staff member who had been terminated for sending representations directly to higher authorities, including the High Court (HC) and the Chief Minister (CM), regarding salary grievances.
The Bench, consisting of Justices B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, emphasized that an employee cannot be terminated merely for sending a representation to superiors outside the established channel.
The Court held, “Class-IV employees, when in financial hardship, may represent directly to superiors, but that alone cannot amount to major misconduct warranting termination from service.”
The case involved a Class-IV employee from the Bareilly Judgeship, who was transferred and appointed as a Process Server in the Nazarat of an outlying court in Baheri, District Bareilly.
The employee was denied allowances as a Process Server and, in response, made representations to higher authorities, bypassing the proper channels.
The District Judge, acknowledging the breach of protocol in the representation, dismissed the employee from the Class-IV position. The High Court upheld the dismissal, leading the employee to file a civil appeal before the Supreme Court.
The employee argued that the punishment imposed violated Rule 3 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, asserting that it was disproportionate to the offense. Conversely, the respondent state defended the dismissal, citing the direct submission of representations to the High Court and Chief Minister without following the proper channel.
The Supreme Court rejected the charge that the employee had falsely alleged caste discrimination, noting that the appellant had not made such allegations himself but rather the Central Nazir had made the statement.
Addressing the second charge of making direct representations to higher authorities, the Court stated, “Class-IV employees, when in financial hardship, may represent directly to superiors, but that alone cannot amount to major misconduct for which punishment of termination from service should be imposed.”
The Court emphasized that interference with the findings of an inquiry officer should be reserved for cases with perverse findings. Based on this, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s findings and ordered the reinstatement of the employee in service.
Case Title: CHATRAPAL VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR., C.A. No. 002461 / 2024,