The Madras High Court has recently observed that the employer should follow the procedures of departmental proceedings even for the termination of a Temporary employee.
Conducting a disciplinary enquiry can help the employer, in the framing charge that is relevant or not against the employee. Thereafter deciding the issue are concerning for the temporary employees.
Background of the Case
Mr R Karthikeyan was removed from service by the Special Officer, Senkurchi Agricultural Co-operative Bank on allegations of indulging in serious malpractices.
After the order of dismissal, the petitioner approached The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies but no action was taken.
He then filed a petition where the High Court directed the Registrar to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass orders on merit.
The court further directed the petitioner to resubmit the representation which was duly complied with by the petitioner. Later, the Registrar considered the representation and rejected the same.
Proceedings of the Case
The bench of Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy was making the above orders filed by Mr R Karthikeyan who was removed from service.
He argued that even though he was a temporary employee, the respondents were duty-bound to conduct an enquiry by following the due procedure of law by allowing the petitioner to refute the allegations against him. However, no such procedure was followed in the present case.
The Additional Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner should have availed was to file for revision within the prescribed time limit according to Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. However, the petitioner had filed only a belated representation which was rejected by the Registrar.
The court did not find merit in the argument of the Additional Government Pleader and considered that even though the petitioner had not filed for revision within the prescribed time limit, there were specific directions to the respondents from the High Court to consider the representation on merit and the court itself had extended the time limit for resubmitting the representation.
The court also found merit in the submission of the petitioner that even termination of a temporary employee must be by following due procedure of law. The court, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Special Officer and the order passed by the Registrar.
Court Judgement
The court also directed that the Special Officer was entitled to conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage of issuing a charge and take a decision in accordance with law by either permitting the petitioner to rejoin duty or by placing him under suspension. The court also directed that the entire enquiry should be carried out within a period of three months from the receipt of the order copy.
The court chose not to award back wages and held that the same could be decided only after the outcome of the enquiry conducted by the Special Officer.
