The Allahabad High Court has upheld the termination of Dr. Raghvendra Mishra, an Assistant Professor at the University of Allahabad, citing his involvement in a serious criminal case. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar, ruled that the University acted within its rights by not continuing the employment of an individual facing grave charges of molestation, for which he is currently out on bail.
Background of the Case
Dr. Raghvendra Mishra, a visually impaired academic scholar from the Economically Weaker Section (EWS), was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit, and Oriental Languages at the University of Allahabad on May 21, 2022. His probation period was initially set for one year and subsequently extended by another year. However, during this period, it was discovered that Dr. Mishra was involved in a criminal case concerning the molestation of a woman, leading the University’s Executive Council to terminate his services on September 15, 2023.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue centered around whether the University’s decision to terminate Dr. Mishra’s employment during his probation period, without conducting an inquiry, was valid. The appellant, University of Allahabad, argued that under Clause 5(a) of Ordinance XLI, the services of a probationary teacher could be terminated with one month’s notice or salary in lieu thereof, without assigning any reasons. The University contended that the presence of serious allegations against Dr. Mishra made it unsuitable to retain him as a faculty member, particularly in a role model position like teaching.
Dr. Mishra, on the other hand, challenged his termination on the grounds that it was arbitrary, punitive, and stigmatic. He argued that the decision was based on unverified allegations and that the proper procedure under Clause 2(e) and (f) of the Ordinance, which mandates a detailed inquiry and notice before termination, was not followed.
Court’s Decision
The Division Bench upheld the University’s decision, emphasizing that the nature and gravity of the charges against Dr. Mishra warranted such an action. The Court noted that the University’s decision to terminate Dr. Mishra’s services did not stem from an inquiry into the misconduct itself but was based on his overall unsuitability for the role, considering the criminal case pending against him.
The Court observed, “An employer is well within its domain to not continue with the services of an employee, especially when the employee is facing a grave criminal charge such as molestation, which fundamentally questions his character and suitability for the job.”
The Bench further clarified that during probation, the continuation of service is subject to satisfactory performance and conduct. In cases where the employer finds the employee’s conduct questionable, as in the present case, it is not necessary to hold a formal inquiry or provide an opportunity for explanation before termination. The decision was deemed non-stigmatic as it was not based on an established misconduct but on overall unsuitability due to the pending criminal case.
Key Observations of the Court
The Court, while citing previous judgments, reiterated that:
– An order terminating the services of a probationer on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance or unsuitability does not require adherence to principles of natural justice, such as notice or an opportunity for hearing.
– The presence of grave allegations like molestation, even if not proven, can form a valid ground for an employer to reconsider the continuation of an employee, especially in a probationary capacity.
– The employer’s decision to terminate Dr. Mishra’s services was not punitive but was a preventive measure to uphold the integrity and reputation of the institution.
Case Details:
– Case Number: Special Appeal No. 596 of 2024
– Parties Involved:
– Appellant: University of Allahabad and 2 others
– Respondent: Dr. Raghvendra Mishra and another
– Bench: Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar
– Counsel for Appellant: Shri Amit Saxena, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Kunal Shah, learned counsel
– Counsel for Respondent: Shri G.K. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Sankalp Narain and Shri Srivats Narain, learned counsel
