SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. G.B. PANT INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY GHURDAURI 

CITATION	2024 INSC 309
DATE OF JUDGMENT	16th April 2024
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Sandeep Kumar
RESPONDENT	GB Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology Ghurdauri & Ors.
BENCH	B.R. Gavai, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

INTRODUCTION

The case relates to a civil appeal filed by Sandeep Kumar against the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court which rejected the petition for writ of Mandamus as well as the application for Review against the termination of services as the Registrar of G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology, Ghurdauri.

The High Court had quashed the writ petition on the grounds of non-compliance of the petitioner to produce the minutes of the Board of Governors which centered on Kumar’s appointment to the post of Registrar. However, the Supreme Court stated that when the minutes were produced, they were favorable to Kumar’s version and that Geekay’s termination without a disciplinary proceeding was unlawful and unconstitutional, violating natural justice.

Hence, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgments, declared Kumar’s dismissal as unlawful, ordered his rehabilitation as Registrar with corresponding emoluments, and allowed the Institute the possibility to proceed disciplinary action against him for desirable.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Sandeep Kumar had been issued an appointment letter to work as the Registrar of G. B. Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology on probation for one year which letter was dated 2nd December 2019. 
2. The Board of Governors had endorsed him in its 26th meeting held on 16th June 2018 but his appointment was contingent on an investigation conducted concerning the complaints that had been voiced about his appointment. His documents and qualifications were genuine and as such, his appointment was endorsed after an inquiry committee cleared him. Kumar served as Registrar for nearly two years.
3. However, on 19th May 2022, he was fired by the management through an order that stated that his appointment had not been endorsed by the Board of Governors. Kumar was not even given any chance of a disciplinary inquiry or asked to show cause for this termination order.
4. He went to the Uttarakhand High Court by filing a writ petition against this, but the petition was dismissed on procedural reasons. Kumar then pursued the matter to the Supreme Court of the United States to appeal against the High Court order.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Was the termination of services of Sandeep Kumar as Registrar without a disciplinary inquiry valid and in consonance with the principles of natural justice?
2. Was it wrong of the High Court to dismiss the writ petitions dully filled by Kumar on grounds of technicalities while the evidence supporting his case was apparent?
3. Was the decision of the High Court that the appointment of Kumar had violated the rules justified, despite the Board approved the selection?
4. Should the Institute be allowed to take disciplinary action against Kumar if desired, and should Kumar return to his position as Registrar with all attached benefits?

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

1. It is clarified here that it was never the intention of the appellant to not place the minutes of the 26th meeting of the Board of Governors dated 16th June 2018 on record and similarly it was not malafide. When tendered, these minutes assist Kumar’s defence as they reveal that the Board had selected him as the Registrar but with the condition; subject to the investigation.
2. Kumar was appointed as Registrar on probation for one year and he continued to work proving his efficiency for almost two years. Hence, his services should be assumed to deem regularized based on the provisions of the appointment letter.
3. Kumar’s services were terminated without any investigations being made in his case and no chance being provided to explain the situation. The termination order was passed solely on ipse dixit, a bare assertion of the respondent which was in complete violation of principles of natural justice.
4. The decision of Uttarakhand High Court to dismiss Kumar’s writ petition and review application on the purely technical ground i.e. want of document is not sustainable in law and that is why the appeals are required to be allowed to set aside the impugned orders and reinstate the appellant as Registrar with all the consequential benefits.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

1. The mere appointment of Sandeep Kumar as Registrar was unlawful in every sense because he lacked the necessary academic requirements as per the Rules. Thus, it was not necessary for the Director to conduct a standard inquiry to justify the dismissal of his services.
2. Kumar hid a crucial piece of evidence, namely the extracts or minutes of 26th BOG meeting, from the High Court when it was seamlessly during concealment of facts in writ petition proceeding. This was tantamount to withholding material facts from the court, thereby disentitling this Applicant from praying for the grant of an equitable remedy under the extraordinary jurisdiction.
3. Although the termination order dated 19th May 2022 said that Kumar was not approved as Registrar because of his alleged manipulation and that the Board of Governors in its 26th meeting on 16th June 2018 never approved him to the position, this is true.
4. Thus, despite the illegality of his appointment, Kumar cannot by force the Institute to reinstate him and to perpetuate what would be considered an unlawful act. The High Court rightly dismissed his writ petition on the ground of non-disclosure of documents rather than to decide it on merits of the case.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Uttarakhand High Court where it had dismissed writ petition filed by Sandeep Kumar as well as his review application. Thus, it held that his dismissal as Registrar of G. B. Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology without a disciplinary proceeding was unlawful and unfair in breach of natural justice.

The Court further ordered the respondent to reinstate Kumar as the Registrar with all corresponding entitlements. But, it extended freedom to the Institute to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Kumar whenever required under the law. The Court pointed that the termination order contained the specification that Kumar’s selection was not approved by the Board of Governors, which was false according to the minutes.

ANALYSIS

This Supreme Court has cleared the need to adhere to natural justice and due process in employment disputes. It rightly nullifies the dismissal of Sandeep Kumar’s services as Registrar, as it was done without holding any disciplinary proceedings and without letting him to explain his case, which was legally improper.

The Court is right that it has quashed the High Court’s orders thrashing Kumar’s writ petition on a technical ground when the document in question ultimately supported his case. This far goes quite a long way in establishing the fact that there is something like substantial justice as opposed to technical justice.

However, the Court does not go to the extreme as it allows the Institute to punish Kumar or expel him, if need be, through the correct procedures of the law. This contributes to keeping the Institute as the authority and, at the same time, to defending the employee’s rights.

In conclusion, the judgment re-establishes the conventional legal positions relating to employment dismissal and holds that employment dismissal must be fair and then meet the legal requirements of procedural fairness and natural justice coupled to the constitutionally endorsed principles of equity and fairness.

CONCLUSION

In the following judgment, the Supreme Court has given a fair go by balancing the principles of natural justice and due process in Employment affairs. Sandeep Kumar’s termination as Registrar was dismissed by the Court without disciplinary hearing and thereby the Court has re-emphasized the well-established legal principle that the employer cannot remove an employee summarily regardless of how ‘inappropriate’ the employee is considered to be for the job.

However, the Court saved the Institute’s right to discipline Kumar by permitting liberty to proceed with disciplinary actions against Kumar following the process of natural justice, thus preserving both the rights of an employee and the interests of a legitimate employer.

The judgment also shows that employers should adhere to substantive and procedural propriety especially in the hiring and termination processes so as to uphold the constitution on matters of equity and fairness.

REFERENCES

1. SCC Online
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/77670688/ 

This Article is written by Aman Raj, a student of Chanakya National Law University, Patna (CNLU); Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.