Employee should not overreact simply because employer asks him/her to explain certain facts: P&H HC

Read Order: Satyawan Singh v. State of Haryana and others 

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, December 1, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that if the employer feels that an employee has committed some misconduct or has indulged in an activity, which is in violation of conduct rules or for that matter has procured some advantage from the employer by concealment of any material fact or on account of some inadvertent mistake by the employer or any of its officers, then the employer has certainly a right to seek explanation from the employee in that regard.

The Bench of Justice H.S.Madaan added that the employee should not show over-anxiety or overreaction simply because the employer has asked him/her to explain certain facts.

The petitioner-Satyawan Singh, then aged 57 years, working as Superintending Engineer with Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, had brought the instant writ petition against respondents – State of Haryana through its Chief Secretary, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh; Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Urban Local Bodies Department, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and Deputy Secretary, Urban Local Bodies, Department of Urban Local Bodies, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing an order dated December 18,2019  qua the petitioner and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of the order.

As per version of the petitioner the facts which were stated pertained to the situation that the petitioner had joined the respondent-department as Junior Engineer onadhoc basis and his services were regularized later.The petitioner was promoted as Executive Engineer w.e.f. August 21,2009 and Superintending Engineer w.e.f. August 10,2016. Though the petitioner was given benefit of retrospective promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, however, the consequential benefits were not granted, despite the petitioner making representation to the department on June 4,2019, but that had not evoked any response.

It was also stated that when the post of Chief Engineer became vacant and petitioner being senior most Superintending Engineer, working in the department, made a representation for consideration for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, he was shocked and surprised to receive a show cause notice asking him as to why deemed promotion granted to him may not be revoked and he be reverted to his original post.The petitioner sent reply to the show cause notice asking for certain documents under the Right to Information Act, so that he could give reply to the show cause notice. He also,came to know that the show cause notice had been issued on the basis of observation made by the second respondent in a speaking order passed in the case of another employees of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad.

The Court opined that, admittedly, there is a relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and respondent. The employer has got administrative control over the employees working on its establishment. If the employer feels that an employee has committed some misconduct or has indulged in an activity, which is in violation of conduct rules or for that matter has procured some advantage from the employer by concealment of any material fact or on account of some inadvertent mistake by the employer or any of its officers, then the employer has certainly a right to seek explanation from the employee in that regard. 

The Bench was of the opinion that none of such orders/notice had immediate adverse effect upon the service of the petitioner.The petitioner ought to have replied to the show cause notice and appeared for personal hearing before the competent authority to present his view point. If such authority was convinced by the explanation rendered by the petitioner that might have resulted in any adverse order not being passed against him affecting his service career. 

As per the Bench, the respondents having not taken a final decision in the matter, the petitioner was feeling agitated unnecessarily and had rushed to the Court, filing the present writ petition. There were no allegations of any malice or mala fide against any of the respondents or any officer.

“The wrong done or some illegality committed in the process can certainly be probed, as per law observing Rule of natural justice in the light of Service Rules. Furthermore, it is not a case of review of any promotion carried out by earlier members of the Department, rather a wrong is being sought to be undone, the malice at a very initial stage. The petitioner has just been asked to render an explanation in that regard. If the respondents are not satisfied by the reply and pass any order adversely affecting the service of the petitioner, then he can take recourse to the remedies available to him under the law, on administrative side or judicial side, if so advised”, said the Bench.

The Court also observed that the petitioner had since retired from service and was asking for his service benefits. The respondents were said to have passed a semi-speaking order and a perusal of that order went to show that as an additional dispensation, the petitioner had been given another opportunity to appear before the Additional Chief Secretary to Government Haryana, Urban Local Bodies Department, on April 23,2021 to say whatever he had to say in the matter, otherwise it would be considered that he had nothing to say in that regard. It also showed that no final order in the matter had since been passed by the respondents affecting the rights of the petitioner, so far.

Thus, holding the writ petition to be clearly premature, the Bench dismissed the same.