The Karnataka High Court remarked that snatching away a job, especially in public employment, virtually amounts to taking away the means of livelihood of an employee and offends Pith & Substance of Fundamental Rights.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KARNATAKA: The Karnataka High Court emphasized the critical importance of job security in public employment, stating that the termination of a job is akin to depriving an employee of their means of livelihood. This decision came as the Court dismissed an intra-court appeal, underscoring the necessity of a fair hearing before any dismissal from service.
The appeal in question challenged a previous decision by a Single Judge of the High Court, which had overturned a dismissal from service and ordered reinstatement. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice Krishna S. Dixit, observed,
“In a society like ours, a job more often than not happens to be the predominant source of livelihood, and therefore snatching away a job (in public employment), like the one that has happened in the case at hand, virtually amounts to taking away the means of livelihood of the employee.”
The Court’s decision was influenced by the fact that only a criminal case was registered against the respondent, and it was still pending. The Court held that the respondent could not have been dismissed from service without an enquiry. Advocate Dr. S. Arumugham represented the petitioners, while AGA Niloufer Akbar appeared for the respondents.
Further elaborating on the legal stance, the Court explained that conviction and sentencing for an offence involving moral turpitude alone would not justify removal from employment.
The Court noted,
“Had the Respondent been convicted & sentenced for such an offence and on that ground he was removed from service, the Appellants could have had an arguable case for examination in Appeal. However, that question does not arise in this case.”
Concluding the judgment, the Court left the decision regarding the payment of back wages during the period the respondent was out of employment to the discretion of the Appellants. This ruling reinforces the principle that employment, especially in the public sector, is a fundamental aspect of an individual’s livelihood and cannot be arbitrarily taken away without due process.
The case, sets a precedent in safeguarding the rights of employees in public service against unjust dismissal, aligning with the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution.
CASE TITLE:
Attikaribettu Grama Panchayath & Anr. v. Sri. Ganesha & Ors. (2024:KHC:1582-DB)
READ JUDGEMENT:
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
