RAHUL TRIPATHI Vs. RAJEEV GANDHI SHIKSHA MISSION BHOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 5-1-1999 contained in Annexure P-18.

(2.) THE facts as have been unfolded in the writ petition are that the Central Government has sponsored a scheme for providing better educational facilities to the children of the rural areas and the said scheme is called 'rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission'. The scheme provides guidelines for smooth functioning of the projects established under the scheme. In accordance with the scheme a post for Block Resource Centre Coordinator was created and it was specifically provided that the appointment would be made to the said post either on deputation or on contract basis and the selection is to be made by the District Level Appointment Committee. The petitioner submitted an application for the appointment of the said post and he was issued the order of appointment on 21-8-1995 arid was posted in the office of the respondent 4. The Block Education Officer-cum-Ex-Officio Block Project Director, Rajeev Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission, Baldcogarh, Distt. Teekamgarh. After completion of the period of the petitioner the matter was referred to the higher authorities of the Mission and the State Project Director of the Mission granted extension. It is averred in the writ petition that under the scheme the Block Resource Centre Co-ordinator (in short 'the BRCC) is required to discharge his duties under the direction of respondent 4. It is provided therein that the accounts at block level will be kept in the joint bank account in the name of Block Project Director and BRCC and any withdrawal from the account is to be made under the joint signature of both the persons. It is setforth in the petition that several projects were started under the scheme and huge amount was sanctioned by the Mission. Several persons got interested to get appointment in the Mission's services though they were not qualified. It is urged that one such person was respondent No. 3, who was appointed earlier to the post of BRCC by use of political influence. He got an appointment to the post of District Project Co-ordinator, Teekamgarh in the month of August, 1997. As soon the respondent 3 got the aforesaid appointment he started pressurising the petitioner to act according to his wishes. The illegal act of the respondent 3 was not acceptable to the petitioner. This created a rift between the two as a result of which the respondent 3 issued a memorandum on 25-11-1997 to the petitioner that he had committed misconduct. The said communication has been brought on record as Annexure P-7. On receipt of the said memorandum the petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations. The petitioner also brought this fact to the notice of the respondent 4 but not action was taken. On the contrary, a complaint was got made against the petitioner alleging that he misbehaved with the respondent 4. According to the writ petitioner as he was not prepared to act in accordance with the wishes of the respondents 3 and 4 allegations were made that he had committed serious financial irregularities. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 were restrained to operated the bank account of the Mission Project at Baldcogarh. While the matter stood thus, without conducting an enquiry an order of termination contained in Annexure P-18 was served on him. It is pleaded that the order of termination refers to many memos issued to the petitioner. It has been averred that before the order of termination was issued prior approval of the Mission Director, Bhopal was not taken and no notice was issued to the petitioner. It is urged in the petition that order passed vide Annexure P-18 contains stigma inasmuch as there are allegations relating to financial irregularities and other irregularities and in absence of any enquiry the order is unsustainable in law.

(3.) A return has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner has no right to continue inasmuch as his appointment was terminated after expiry of the period by efflux of time and hence, he can have no grievance to make. It is also pleaded that the petitioner was reappointed on 6-9-1996 but as there were-serious financial irregularities against him show-cause notices were issued to him on many an occasion but his reply was not found satisfactory and accordingly his services were terminated in lieu of one month salary paid in advance. The justification has been given for terminating the services of the petitioner.