W.A. No. 1 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No. 251 of 2016. Case: The Jawahaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences Society Manipur and Ors. Vs Simon Kamei. Manipur High Court
| Case Number | W.A. No. 1 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No. 251 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: A. Bimol, Advocate and For Respondents: Kh. Tarunkumar, Advocate |
| Judges | Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, C.J. and Kh. Nobin Singh, J. |
| Issue | Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25(1C); Constitution of India - Article 32; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 364A, 400, 406, 409, 417, 420 |
| Judgement Date | January 27, 2017 |
| Court | Manipur High Court |
Judgment:
Kh. Nobin Singh, J.
1. Heard Shri A. Bimol, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Kh. Tarunkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The instant writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18-10-2016 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the order dated 07-09-2013 issued by the appellants was set aside and the respondent herein was directed to be reinstated with half salary from the date of termination till the date of his reinstatement.
3.1 The facts which are relevant for deciding the writ appeal, are that the respondent herein was initially engaged as Block Health Programme Manager under the Part-B of National Rural Health Mission on contract basis which came to be extended from time to time. While he was working in that capacity, the respondent along with four others were appointed as Medical Social Worker vide order dated 08-09-2011 issued by the Director, JNIMS on the recommendation of a Selection Board and accordingly, the respondent along with four others were placed on probation for a period of two years with effect from the date of their joining.
3.2 The respondent was arrested by the police, Nungba P.S. in connection with a case under FIR No. 28(1) 2013 NBA P.S. u/s. 364-A/400 IPC & 25(1-C) A and since he was kept in police custody for more than 48 hours, the Director, JNIMS issued an order dated 31-07-2013 placing him under suspension w.e.f. 26-07-2013 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding under Rule 10(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. At about the same time, the Mission Director, District Health Mission Society, Tamenglong submitted a report to the O.C., Tamenglong Police Station informing that the respondent was found to be working as the Block Programme Manager of PHC, Haochong in contravention of the rules, even though he had reportedly started working in JNIMS as Medical Social Worker. On 06-09-2013, a similar complaint also came to be made by the Director, JNIMS against the respondent to the O.C., Porompat Police Station and on the basis of the said reports/complaint, two cases under FIRs- (i) FIR No. 13(9) 2013 TML P.S. u/s. 409/417/420 IPC; and (ii) FIR No. 275(9) 2013 PRT P.S. u/s. 406/420 IPC were registered against him. However, the respondent was discharged from the said cases by the learned CJM on the ground that the offences alleged to have been committed by the respondent, were purely civil in nature without any criminal liability. But the earlier case registered vide FIR No. 28(1) 2013 NBA P.S. u/s. 364-A/400 IPC & 25(I-C) A is still pending for disposal.
3.3 A Committee was constituted for assessing the performance of the probationers in JNIMS including the respondent and the Committee having found that the service of the respondent was unsatisfactory, recommended termination of his service. On receipt of the recommendation submitted by the Committee and after having considered the matter in detail and followed the due process, the Director, JNIMS, in exercise of power conferred under Rule 52 of the Rules and Regulation of JNIMS, issued the order dated 07-09-2013 terminating the service of the respondent with immediate effect. The said order dated 07-09-2013 came to be challenged by the respondent by way of a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 251 of 2016 on the inter-alia grounds that the said two cases registered under FIR No. 13(9) 2013 TML P.S. u/s. 409/417/420 IPC & FIR No. 275(9) 2013 PRT P.S. u/s. 406/420 IPC had been closed vide an order dated 27-02-2015 passed by the Ld. CJM, Tamenglong; that if the registration of the aforesaid cases against the respondent was not the reason for termination of his service, the authorities ought to have informed him of any shortcoming or unsatisfactory service on his part and that since the termination of the respondent's service having been made without giving any notice or informing him about the unsatisfactory service rendered by him, the same was bad in law in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere V. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1989) 3 SCC 311 and Pradip Kumar V. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2012) 13 SCC 182. The said writ petition was contested by the appellants herein contending inter-alia that the respondent was terminated from service due to his unsatisfactory service, rendered by him during the period of probation, in exercise of power conferred under Rule 52 of the Rules and Regulations of JNIMS and the termination being simpliciter and not punitive in nature, it did cast no stigma to the respondent and therefore, the same is permissible in law.
4. After having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the learned Single Judge vide its judgment and order dated 18-10-2016 held that the termination was due to certain shortcomings in the service rendered by the respondent on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee and it was stigmatic in nature. The learned Single Judge further held that before the termination order was issued, the respondent was not given any notice or prior information of the recommendation of the Committee and therefore, the termination order was not sustainable in law in view of principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere (supra) and accordingly, the termination order was set aside.
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 18-10-2016 passed by the Learned Single Judge, the appellants preferred the present writ appeal on the inter-alia grounds...
To continue reading
Request your trial