BITTU MASIH Vs. SHILLONG MUNICIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that he is a contractual employee with the respondent/Shillong Municipal Board and was served with a show cause notice on 23.07.2018 for willfully remaining absent from duty with effect from 01.06.2018 without any intimation nor any information. It seems that the absence was caused as the petitioner was under custody in connection with some violence that had taken place on July, 2018 in Sweepers Colony, Iew Mawlong, Shillong. As such, he had put up the case that the absence was not willful, but the respondents by letter/communication dated 21.09.2018, directed him to produce documents to show that the criminal case registered against him had been closed failing which his services were to stand terminated. Being aggrieved he is before this court by way of the instant writ petition.

(2.) Mr. M.F. Qureshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the absence of the petitioner was not willful and was caused by circumstances beyond the petitioner's control, inasmuch as, communal violence has erupted at Sweepers Colony on July, 2018 resulting in his wrongful arrest. He submits that the issuance of the impugned letter dated 21.09.2018, was misplaced and uncalled for, inasmuch as, he had filed the show cause to the letter dated 23.07.2018 explaining his absence. He further submits that the impugned letter issued in reply to the show cause is without any basis and should be quashed, inasmuch as, it places on the petitioner a requirement which is impossible to fulfil in his personal capacity. He therefore prayed that the said impugned letter /communication be set aside and that the case of the petitioner be considered afresh by the respondent/Shillong Municipal Board for resumption of his services with the Municipal Board.

(3.) Mr. K. Baruah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Shillong Municipal Board submits that firstly, no right has accrued to the petitioner to claim for re-instatement as he is a contractual employee. He submits that the fact that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case was unknown to the respondent, and it was only after the show cause had been issued and the reply received, that the respondent became aware that the petitioner was detained for interrogation and was in custody for some time. He further submits that as the petitioner had made a statement that he is not in any way involved in the said incident and as such was released from detention, the impugned communication was issued whereby, he was asked to substantiate that there was no case against him, within 7(seven) days. He contends that the action of the respondent not being illegal in any manner, the writ petition should be dismissed in limine.