Dismissing Employee For A Charge Not Mentioned In Show-Cause Notice Improper : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently set aside the suspension of school teachers in Jharkhand, after finding that they were declared ineligible based on a different charge, which was never labelled against them in the show cause notice.

The candidates were held ineligible based on an erroneous marks calculation method, which was never part of the original show cause notice, and denying them the opportunity of a hearing before ordering their dismissal on a different charge. In short, the teachers were penalised on a charge they were never asked to answer. They successfully defended against Charge A, but were punished for un-levelled Charge B.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and KV Viswanathan heard the case where the Appellants, who were appointed as teachers, were terminated from their posts as Intermediate Trained Teachers in 2016, just months after their appointment in 2015. Primarily, the show cause notice levelled allegations against the Appellants that they have not secured a minimum of 45% marks to be eligible for the post. The Appellants replied to the notice informing that as a Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidate, they only need 40%, and having secured such marks, their eligibility cannot be disputed.

The employer, instead of accepting the defence, introduced a new, unstated charge stating that the Appellants' method of calculating the 40% is wrong, as when their vocational marks were excluded, they fall below 40% making them ineligible.  

Moreover, without allowing them to heard, they were dismissed from the service, leading them to file a Writ Petition before the High Court, where the Single Judge decided in their favour and set aside the suspension; however, the Division Bench overturned the Single Judge's decision, leading the Appellants to file an Appeal before the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the Division bench's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Datta observed that by punishing the teachers for a reason (exclusion of vocational marks) that was never part of the original accusation, the Respondent committed a fundamental breach of due process.

“The present is akin to a situation where the noticee successfully defends the charge against him but is made to suffer civil consequences because the notifier finds the noticee guilty of a different charge in respect whereof he is not put to notice. In such a case, the finding of guilt which is at variance with the original charge without proper opportunity to respond offends due process and renders any order or action unsustainable.”, the court said.

“Since the respondents had acted in a rather highhanded, arbitrary and illegal manner in terminating the services of the appellants without justifiable reason and also following due process, the orders terminating the services of the appellants are also set aside.”, the court added.

“The appellants – Ravi and Prem Lal – shall be treated to have been in continuous service right from the date(s) of their original appointment (December, 2015), as if their services were never terminated. They shall be entitled to service benefits like arrears of pay in full and seniority counted from the dates of initial appointment. However, for the purpose of meeting the experience criterion for promotion, the period not spent on duty will not be counted. The rationale behind this direction is that practical experience of teaching is gained through imparting of lessons to the students. They cannot, thus, be held to have acquired experience without hands-on work. Though the appellants are not at fault, we have attempted to suitably compensate them by awarding full arrears of pay.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: RAVI ORAON VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1009

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Binod Singh, Adv. Ms. Sangeeta Singh, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Syed Uruj Abbas, A.A.G. Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Gunjesh Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Niket Nalin, Adv. Mr. Manoneet Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, Adv. Ms. Diksha Ojha, Adv. Mr. Ishwar Chandra Roy, Adv. Mr. Farrukh Rasheed, AOR