Sword of Damocles can’t hang over employee forever: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, July 5

When Sarbjit Singh joined as Director, Physical Education, in 2008, little did he know that his graduation marks would be quietly reduced by the university concerned three years later, leading to his dismissal after over a decade of service. In a significant reversal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has declared, in his case, that an employee’s future can’t remain indefinitely uncertain.

“For, upon an employee, the sword of Damocles cannot be hung over for an indefinite period of time that his selection can be reopened and questioned and he thrown out. The mark sheet in this case was corrected in 2011, while the petitioner was appointed in 2008. Proceedings against him were initiated in 2017 and he has in 2021 been shown the door, by which time, he has even become overage,” Justice Aman Chaudhary asserted.

The decision is significant as it underscores the protection of employment rights against delayed administrative actions, emphasising that an employee’s career path cannot be marred years after appointment when the individual bears no fault.

The matter was brought to Justice Chaudhary’s notice after the employee through counsels Kapil Kakkar and Shreesh Kakkar challenged orders dated August 23, 2021, terminating his services as director, physical education, and another order issued on March 1, 2022, vide which his appeal was also dismissed.

Appearing before the Bench, Kapil Kakkar argued his client’s marks were reduced following “some mistake due to error caused by the computer” following which a revised mark sheet was issued by the varsity concerned in 2011. He added that the employee was not found to be at fault in multiple inquiries. Besides this, there was no misrepresentation on his part. Yet, his services were terminated after 13 years.

Justice Chaudhary asserted that the university unequivocally owned its mistake in the mark sheet. But its revision was made behind the petitioner’s back without the issuance of notice following which “he received a bolt from the blue of losing his job”.

“There being a faux pas at the end of the examiner university, it would be unjust to hold the examinee accountable…. To send him home, that too after rendering a service of about 13 years, would be hard on him and his family as well, thus inequitable,” Justice Chaudhary said.

The Bench also ordered the restoration of his service, along with consequential notional benefits in accordance with law. Besides, the court found incongruity in terminating the petitioner’s service, which dented legitimacy of the process.