In a recent decision, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, declared the termination of Dr. Prabhanshu Shrivastava, a Dental Surgeon, as illegal for being issued without providing an opportunity of hearing. The court ruled that the termination order, which labeled the petitioner as “absconding,” amounted to stigmatic action and was in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Case Background
The case, Dr. Prabhanshu Shrivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Writ-A No. 31358 of 2021), arose after Dr. Shrivastava, represented by advocates Shivendra S. Singh Rathore, Sachin Upadhyay, and Shivendra Shivam Singh, challenged his termination order dated November 30, 2021. The respondents were represented by the State’s learned Standing Counsel and advocate R.K. Upadhyaya.
Dr. Shrivastava was appointed to the post of Dental Surgeon in October 2020 following a rigorous selection process. Prior to the declaration of his appointment, he had enrolled in a postgraduate course in Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry at the Government Dental College, Nagpur. Seeking to balance his professional responsibilities and academic pursuits, he requested study leave from the Department of Medical Health and Child Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, which was denied on the grounds of his probationary status.
When Dr. Shrivastava attempted to join his duties in December 2021, he discovered that his services had been terminated. The termination cited his alleged unauthorized absence as grounds for invoking the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. Aggrieved, he approached the High Court seeking reinstatement.
Legal Issues
The case revolved around three key legal issues:
1. Applicability of the 1975 Rules:
The petitioner contended that he held a substantive appointment on a permanent post, rendering the rules governing temporary government servants inapplicable.
2. Stigmatic Nature of Termination:
The termination order described Dr. Shrivastava as “absconding,” which the petitioner argued cast a stigma on his professional record and adversely impacted his future employment prospects.
3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
Dr. Shrivastava argued that the termination was issued without any prior notice, explanation, or opportunity of hearing, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Key Observations by the Court
Justice Alok Mathur delivered the judgment, emphasizing procedural fairness and constitutional safeguards in employment matters.
– Inapplicability of Temporary Service Rules:
The court noted that the petitioner’s appointment was to a substantive and permanent post, disqualifying it from being classified as “temporary service.” Justice Mathur remarked:
“Basic ingredients of ‘temporary service’ being absent with regard to the services of the petitioner, he could not have been said to be in temporary service.”
– Stigmatic Nature of Termination:
Justice Mathur held that describing the petitioner as “absconding” amounted to a stigma, which required a formal inquiry and the opportunity to be heard. Citing multiple precedents, the court observed:
“Any order casting stigma on an employee can only be passed after giving due opportunity of hearing.”
– Violation of Natural Justice:
The court underscored that no notice or opportunity was afforded to Dr. Shrivastava before his termination, rendering the action arbitrary and unconstitutional. It held:
“Such an order casting stigma on [the petitioner] could not have been passed without giving him proper opportunity of hearing.”
The Court’s Decision
Quashing the termination order, the court ordered the reinstatement of Dr. Shrivastava with all consequential benefits from the date of his appointment. The court also clarified the distinction between “motive” and “foundation” in termination cases, asserting that punitive actions must adhere to due process.
