The Court finds dismissals stigmatic, mandates adherence to principles of natural justice, and directs a fresh hearing within three months.
In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court has quashed the dismissal of Civil Defence Volunteers (CDVs) Deepak Kumar and others, who were terminated under Section 6(2) of the Civil Defence Act, 1968, by the Directorate of Civil Defence, Government of NCT of Delhi. The Court found the dismissals to be stigmatic in nature and ruled that they violated the principles of natural justice due to the absence of a fair opportunity for the volunteers to be heard.
The bench, comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, highlighted that the dismissals, though framed as simple, were punitive in essence, as they were based on alleged misconduct without providing the affected parties a chance to defend themselves. The Court emphasized that Section 6(2) of the Civil Defence Act cannot be used to circumvent the procedural safeguards outlined in Section 6(1), which mandates inquiry and hearing in cases of misconduct or stigmatic dismissal.
Both writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the vires of Sections 6(2) and 14(1) of the Civil Defence Act. The petitioners, who served voluntarily and honorarily, sought reinstatement and damages following their dismissal. The Court acknowledged the voluntary nature of service by CDVs but underscored the need for fairness and adherence to natural justice in administrative actions.
The judgment also addressed the constitutional validity of Section 14(1), which purportedly barred judicial review of orders under the Act. The Court read down the provision, stating that while it precluded challenges to the propriety of decisions, the legality of such orders remained justiciable, thereby maintaining the scope for judicial review.
Consequently, the Court directed that the dismissal orders be set aside and the respondents provide the petitioners with full opportunities for a hearing, in compliance with Section 6(1) of the Act. The respondents have been instructed to pass a speaking order within three months from the receipt of the Court's judgment.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the recent circular dated 31.10.2023, which discontinued the services of CDVs, rendered the reinstatement requests moot. Nevertheless, the judgment included a directive for the respondents to notify the petitioners of any future vacancies, giving them preference when services resume under the Act.
This decision underscores the Court's commitment to upholding the principles of natural justice and ensuring fair treatment in dismissals, even within voluntary organizations like the Civil Defence Corps.
Bottom Line:
Civil Defence Act, 1968 - Dismissal of Civil Defence Volunteers (CDVs) under Section 6(2) - Dismissals stigmatic in nature must follow the principles of natural justice, including a fair opportunity to be heard - Section 6(2) cannot be used to circumvent the procedural safeguards of Section 6(1) of the Act.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Defence Act, 1968 Sections 6(1), 6(2), 7, and 14(1).
