ANIL KUMAR KARANDIKAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims sympathetic treatment. This is last submission, but, not least. The petitioner was appointed in the Pilot Project for a fixed period upto 30th September, 2000. He was appointed on 15-1-1999. He absented himself without taking leave from 11-10-1999. The petitioner applied for casual leave on 8-10-1999 of one day. On 11 -10-1999 he has filed an application for grant of casual leave upto 21-10-1999. Since the petitioner was working in the Pilot Project, he was required by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to file a proper application for sanction of earned leave along with the medical report. Petitioner applied for commuted leave for the period 11-10-1999 to 21-10-1999. He was informed that he was not entitled for such a leave as such he should apply for earned leave. It appears that the petitioner did not apply for earned leave. Hence, he was asked on 19-11-1999 to present himself on duty and to file explanation and to show reason why disciplinary action be not taken against him. The petitioner applied for leave from 8-10-1999 to 12-10-1999. Petitioner presented himself on 13-12-1999 and submitted application and thereafter again absented without leave. A notice was issued to him on 24-12-1999 as he absented continuously from 11-10-1999 which was an act of gross indiscipline and as such he should report on duty and file fitness certificate as per the rule. The petitioner in reply submitted on 5-1-2000 contended that he was not keeping well and as such was unable to submit a fitness certificate and was unable to report on duty and submitted that only after recovering, he may be in a position to submit a proper application alongwith fitness certificate. Ultimately as the petitioner was working on the 'pilot Project', which was started for quick disposal of cases, purpose of which was being defeated, his services were dispensed with on the ground that his services were no more required, order of removal P/13 was passed on 1-3-2000 which is the impugned order in the instant writ petition.

(2.) IN the return filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it is contended that the appointment was purely a temporary appointment for specific period. It was to end automatically on expiry of the 'pilot Project'. The period of Pilot Project had come to an end, as such the petition is rendered infructuous. Petitioner submitted an application for commuted leave, to which he was not entitled. Petitioner was advised to submit an application for earned leave, which he did not prefer. He did not report for duty even after notice dated 24-12-1999 and continuously absented himself. As the petitioner continuously remained absent from duty, the work of Pilot Project suffered adversely. The petitioner was posted with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balaghat and due to his continuous absence, the Chief Judicial Magistrate First class was facing great hardship in accomplishing the task under project as apparent from reports Annexure-R/1. The appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary and he, on the ground of his alleged illeness, was not performing his duties thus defeating the very object of employing the additional manpower for completing the Project, which is the speedier Justice by deciding more cases in a particular year, for which additional pay is also sanctioned. The petitioner was required to show-cause. No regular departmental enquiry was required to be conducted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Shri Sunil Choubey submits that no departmental enquiry was conducted. Petitioner, as a matter of fact, was ailing and had sufficient reason for his absence. The persons who were appointed in Pilot Project were subsequently taken in the regular establishment. In any case, the petitioner is entitled for sympathetic treatment. He places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Scooters India Ltd. v. M. Mohammad Yaqub and Anr. (2001) 1 SCC 61 to contend that an enquiry is necessary into the cause of absence consistently in accordance with the principle of natural justice, even if a provision is there in the standing order governing the service which provides automatic termination of the service on overstaying leave, such provision of standing order cannot be used to effect automatic termination of the service. He further place reliance on a decision of this Court in W. P. 2394/2000 (Ms. C. Amolik v. State of M. P. and Ors.), in which various other decision of the Supreme Court were considered. The Supreme Court in Laxman Dundappa Dhamanekar and Anr. v. Management of Vishwa Bharata Seva Samiti and Anr. , (2001 AIR SCW 3786) laid down that if any teacher remains absent without any leave, it is open to the Management to terminate the services of such teachers only after complying with the provisions of the Act and the rules or principles of natural justice. In Laxman Dundappa Dhamanekar (supra) the Apex Court held that when there is no provision either in the Act or the rules providing for automatic termination of services of a teacher on account of being absent without leave. If any teacher remains absent without any leave, it is open to the Management to terminate the services of such teachers only after complying with the provisions of the Act and the rules and principles of natural justice. In that case, their Lordships observed that: