BHAVABHAI BHADABHAI MARU Vs. DHANDHUKA NAGAR PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Fiat justitia, ruat caelum" Let justice be done, though the heavens should fall. "Let justice be done" was the sole cry of this Harijan sweeper, a thinly fleshed skeleton with folded hands entreated for mercy before mighty autocratic employer and unfortunately this employer-Dhandhuka Nagar Panchayat acted in the same manner as Emperor Piso acted while wrongly applying this "Fiat Justitia". How wrongly the phrase was used by Piso is quoted by Lord Denning in his book "THE FAMILY STORY" in following words : "In my coat of arms, I took as my motto, Fiat justitia-Let justice be done believing it to have a respectable origin. I have since discovered that it was first used to excuse the most outrageous injustice. It comes from a story told by Seneca. Piso sentenced a soldier to death for the murder of Gaius. He ordered centurion to execute the sentence. When the soldier was about to be executed, Gaius came for- ward himself alive and well. The centurion reported it to Piso. He sentenced all three to death. The soldier because he had already been sentenced. The centurion for disobeying orders. And Gaius for being the cause of the death of two innocent men. Piso excused it by the plea "Fiat justitia."

(2.) Exactly the same justice is done to the petitioner in the case by the respondent-Nagar Panchayat by applying rule of "hire and fire" and by depriving the petitioner of his source to livelihood by a stroke of pen, dated 14-2-1991 whereby he has been dismissed from service with effect from 15-2-1991.

(3.) This warrant of economic death penalty is the subject-matter of challenge and relevant facts, giving rise to the present petition, are as under : (i) The petitioner who belongs to Scheduled Caste community came to be appointed as a Sweeper in the year 1962 by the respondent-Panchayat, and he has been discharging his duties, as such, till 15-2-1991. There is no dispute about the fact that he was a permanent employee of the respondent-Panchayat. (ii) On 12/09/1990, a notice to show cause was served on the petitioner enlisting therein as many as 12 irregularities and calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him for the misconducts. The various allegations levelled in the said notice are spread over a period of more than 6 years and the first misconduct attributed to the petitioner in September, 1990 was referable to 25th December, 1984 when the petitioner was absent from duty without any report. It may be noted that it was an absence for a day only. For the said misconduct notice was given on 29-12-1984, and thereafter, the respondent-Panchayat thought it fit not to take any action. (iii) The second misconduct relates to April, 1988 and it is alleged that the petitioner was not carrying out the work entrusted to him and that the heaps of garbage were lying in the area which was entrusted to the petitioner, and for that purpose notice was served on him. (iv) The third allegation relates to the conduct of the petitioner in sending his daughter for the purpose of sweeping, and thereby, it is alleged that at times the petitioner has failed to attend his duties and that his daughter attended the duties and cleaned the area. However, realising that such a conduct may not amount misconduct, it is further alleged that his daughter talked insolently with the residents of the area. It is said that for this alleged conduct of the daughter he was answerable. (v) The fourth allegation against the petitioner was that very often he was reporting late for duties and that he was not completing the work assigned to him. For this misconduct, it was alleged that complaints were received from the inhabitants and that in this behalf notice was given to the petitioner. (vi) The fifth allegation is of similar type whereby it was alleged that on 6-4-1990 the Inspector visited the area which was entrusted to the petitioner for cleaning, and it was found that the said area was not cleaned. It was also found that the gutters of the area were overflowing. (vii) It is further alleged that the petitioner was not remaining present for cleaning the area entrusted to him and that very often he was not present in the team of cleaners. It is further alleged that the petitioner was not cleaning the area entrusted to him and that he was not remaining present and he was negligent in the discharge of his duties. Based on these allegations the petitioner was called upon to file his written reply as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. (viii) By written reply, dated 15-9-1990 the petitioner denied the charges levelled against him and pointed out that for the incident of 25/12/1984 there was no justification for taking action after a lapse of about 7 years. It may be noted that as stated by the petitioner in the memo of Special Civil Application on oath, in the month of December, 1984 his father expired and he was required to leave for his village and that was the reason why he remained absent from duty on 25/12/1984. According to him this fact was reported by him when he resumed on the next day and therefore, in fact, no action was taken against him by the then elected panchayat. As regards other allegations he pointed out that on occasions when he was not keeping good health he used to take his daughter along with him for better work and that cleaning of the area entrusted to him was regularly done. As regards overflowing of gutters he has pointed out that, in fact, main gutter was broken and number of water connections were leaking and therefore there was overflowing of the gutters. He also pointed out that he was the oldest and the seniormost sweeper serving in the respondent-Panchayat and that, in fact, he was entitled to be promoted to the post of Mukaddam, but one newly appointed Punjabhai Bhanabhai was promoted to the said post and therefore, at his instance, action was taken against him. (ix) From the reply of the petitioner it becomes clear that he has not admitted any of the charges levelled against him. He has specifically denied the charges and it was therefore not a case of admission of the guilt or misconduct by the employee. (x) To the surprise of the petitioner, he thereafter, received order, dated 14-2-1991 whereby he was informed that the chargesheet, dated 12-9-1990 was given to him and that he was found guilty of all the charges levelled against him by the General Board of Dhandhuka Nagar Panchayat in its meeting held on 8-2-1991, and therefore, it was decided to dismiss him from service with effect from 15-2-1991. Those very charges are, thereafter, enumerated in the order and it is stated that for those charges the petitioner is dismissed from service. (xi) It is this action of dismissal which is under challenge in this petition.