KRISHNA KUMAR DEWANGAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners seek to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 7-8-1998 passed in transfer application No. 3440/88 (Krishna Kumar Dewangan and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) by the State Administrative Tribunal.

(2.) The case of the petitioner No. 1 before the Tribunal was that he was appointed as Part time Secretary in Gram Panchayat with effect from 23-7-79 on a monthly salary of Rs. 30.00. According to the petitioner No. 2 he was appointed as a Part time Secretary w.e.f. 1-4-79. Petitioner No. 2 was appointed on honourary basis and no remuneration was paid to him. The petitioners say and submit that the State Government took a policy decision to absorb all part time secretaries employed by the Gram Panchayals appointed prior to 7-9-79, in the Government service on the post of Gram Sahayak. According to the petitioners, respondent No. 3, the Joint Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, Bilaspur, after scrutinising the qualification and eligibility of the petitioners appointed them as Gram Sahayak. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed under Annexure D and the petitioner No. 2 was appointed under Annexure E on the terms and conditions contained in the said order. Thereafter, notice dated 12-1-1988 was issued by the District Deputy Director to the petitioner No. 1 alleging that he had obtained the appointment by playing fraud and making a bogus claim of having worked as a Part time Secretary while in fact he did not work on the said post. Annexure F is the copy of said notice dated 12-1-1988. Petitioner No. 1 was served on 12-2-88. He was required to submit his reply within four days but he did not submit any reply as according to him the termination order was already issued on 4-2-88. Petitioner No. 1 submits that his services were terminated much before service of the show-cause notice. Similarly, the services of petitioner No, 2 were terminated vide order dated 20-1-88 and the said termination was without any notice to him. The petitioners submitted their representation to the authorities, but as they did not receive any favourable reply, they were constrained to file the proper proceedings challenging the termination of their services.

(3.) The respondents in their return filed before the State Administrative Tribunal submitted that the petitioners did not avail of the alternative opportunity made available to them of filing of an appeal to the Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department against the orders of termination and as such the petition deserved dismissal. It was also submitted that as each of the petitioners did not work with the Panchayat and after lodging a false and bogus claim, obtained the favourable order in their favour, the authorities were justified in terminating their services. It was also contended by the respondents that the certificates on which strong reliance was placed by the petitioners were in fact fake and fictitious. The State also submitted that show-cause notices were issued to the petitioners but they did not submit any reply to the same and the authorities were left with no option except to terminate the services.