MAKHAN LAL AHIRWAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order dated 15.2.2012 by which contract appointment of the petitioner is terminated (Annexure P/4), petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as a Sub Engineer on contract basis after due selection vide order Annexure P/1 dated 6.11.2006. As per the terms and conditions of appointment Clause 15 of the appointment order contemplates that if service of the petitioner which is on contract basis is to be terminated on allegations which constitute misconduct or which are serious in nature, the same can be done only after granting due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that by the impugned order which is stigmatic in nature the contract is terminated on allegations which amounts to misconduct and as the proper enquiry or opportunity of hearing is not granted, the same is unsustainable.

(3.) Shri N. S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to clause 15 of the appointment order Annexure P/1, the conditions stipulated therein as indicated herein above and submitted that while petitioner was working, a show cause notice Annexure P/2 was issued to him on 22.3.2010. In this show cause notice the allegations were with regard to improper recording of measurement in the MB book and thereby causing embezzlement. It is stated by Shri Ruprah that vide his reply dated 20.4.2010 petitioner explained the position and gave his defense. However, treating his reply to be admission and by holding that no reply had been submitted impugned action is taken. Similarly a second show cause notice dated 12.5.2011 was issued to the petitioner. To this also petitioner submitted the reply on 18.7.2011. Thereafter a third show cause notice Annexure P/3 was issued to which also petitioner submitted a reply but without taking note of the reply of the petitioner and merely on the ground that petitioner has not given his justification or reply to the show cause notices, impugned action is taken. Contending that the action is taken without hearing the petitioner, without considering his reply to the show cause notice, the same is stigmatic in nature and therefore, could be done only after proper enquiry is conducted, Shri Ruprah prays for interference into the matter and in support of his aforesaid contention to the effect that even for terminating the contract employment if the termination is for allegations which amounts to misconduct then opportunity of hearing should be granted, he invites my attention to a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Mission Director, RCH/ NRHM Vs. Ranjit Jain and another,2011 MPLSR 361 and two other judgments on similar grounds in the matter of termination of contract employees, they are : Rakesh Chandra Kein Vs. State of M.P. & Others, 2010 ILR(MP) 1107 and Jitendra Vs. State of M.P. & Others, 2008 4 MPLJ 670. Thereafter Shri Ruprah took me through the allegations leveled in the show cause notice, MB book submitted by the petitioner and other material adduced and submitted that without adverting to consider his explanation and without conducting a proper departmental enquiry a stigmatic order is passed casting usurpation on the petitioner that also without giving him proper opportunity of hearing. Referring to the receipt about acknowledgment of measurement book submitted by the petitioner filed as Annexure P/3C, the documents and other material supplied by the petitioner in his reply Annexure P/3(A) and P/3(B), Shri Ruprah submitted that as action is taken in the matter for terminating the services of the petitioner on allegations which constitute misconduct, proper opportunity of hearing and enquiry should have been conducted and the same having not been undertaken, the action is unsustainable.