Supreme Court orders reinstatement of Class IV staff axed for sending direct representation to senior officials, UP CM

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has reinstated in service a Class IV staff of the district judiciary who was dismissed for sending direct representations to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court and other officials of the Uttar Pradesh Government, including the then Chief Minister, without going through proper channels.

A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra said that a Class-IV employee, when in financial hardship, may represent directly to superiors but that by itself cannot amount to major misconduct, for which punishment of termination from service should be imposed.

Holding that the finding of the guilt recorded by the Enquiry Officer is perverse, the Bench proceeded to reinstate the appellant in service with all benefits.

It said, “We deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the order dated 30.04.2007 whereby the appellant was terminated from service.”

Earlier in 2019, the Allahabad High Court had dismissed the writ petition of the appellant as being devoid of merit.

The petitioner – Chatrapal – was appointed on a permanent basis to the post of Ardly, a class IV Post, in the Bareilly District Judgeship. Later, he was transferred and posted as Process Server in the Nazarat of an outlying court of Bareilly. Though the appellant joined the Nazarat Branch, he was being paid the remuneration of Ardly.

Aggrieved, he made several representations. In June 2003, he was placed under suspension and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him.

The appellant was served with a charge sheet that first, he had used derogatory language and made false allegations against the District Judge and other officials, and second, the appellant communicated letters and representations to the Registrar General and other officials of the state government, including the then Chief Minister.

Post enquiry, the appellant was dismissed from service in 2007. Before the apex court, the counsel for the appellant contended that the quantum of punishment imposed was not commensurate with the guilt even if it is presumed that the language used in the complaint constitutes flagrant breach of the UP Government Servant Conduct Rules.

Among other considerations, the Supreme Court took note of the fact that several other employees of the Bareilly District Court had sent representations directly to the superiors, but no action was taken against them.