MANOJ JAIN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order dated 16.9.2008 Annexure P/13 and 23.9.2008 Annexure P/18 passed by respondent No. 2 accepting the so-called resignation of the petitioner and terminating the contract appointment of the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. Facts that have come on record indicates that petitioner was appointed in the M.P. Rural Livelihood Project initially on contract basis vide order dated 18.12.2004. The contract appointment was for a particular period and clause 2.9 of the said contract of appointment contemplates the following condition:-

(2.) The appointment was on the pay scale indicated in the letter Annexure P/2 dated 15.12.2004. Even though initially the contract was for a particular period i.e. one year, record indicates that contract was extended initially vide Annexure P/5 upto December 2007 and thereafter, vide order Annexure P/6 on 14.12.2007 his contract was extended upto 30th June, 2012.

(3.) It seems that while the petitioner was so working and was posted as a District Project Officer in Anooppur, there was certain difficulties faced in the administration of the project mainly due to non-cooperation from some of the employees or on the so called alleged ineffective administration by the Project Officer. Be it as it may be a communication Annexure P/3 was made on 25.10.2005 by the Project Coordinator respondent No. 2 to five of the employees detailed in the said communication advising them or rather warning them to carry out the work properly and to ensure that the work of project move smoothly. Certain act of indifference on the part of the employees were pointed out in this communication. A copy of the letter was also endorsed to the petitioner with an advise to ensure that the work in the project continues smoothly. It is a case of the petitioner that one Smt. Shikha Sarwgi respondent No. 4 was also working under him, she was creating certain hindrance in the working of the project. She was not cooperating with the petitioner and various other authorities and therefore, petitioner sought for explanation from respondent No. 4 vide Annexure P/10 on 4.8.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have intimated respondent No. 2 the manner of working of respondent No. 4 and the period during which she remained unauthorized absent. A detailed complaint with regard to working of respondent No. 4 was communicated by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P/11 on 14.8.2008. According to the petitioner instead of taking action against respondent No. 4 and advising her to improve her work and conduct, the petitioner was informed that complaints have been received against the petitioner from respondent No. 4 and petitioner was directed to give his comments on the same. The petitioner is said to have denied the allegations and sought for impartial enquiry into the matter and contended that respondent No. 4 is making uncalled for allegations. Be it as it may be, record indicates that respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P/13 dated 16.9.2008 communicated to the petitioner that his working in the project has not improved and as a result he was directed either to submit his resignation within or before 15.10.2008 else he was warned that his contract appointment would be terminated in accordance to clause 2.9 of the appointment order dated 8.12.2004. Petitioner responded to the said communication vide Annexure P/14 on 17.9.2008, again explained the circumstances and pointed out that he is being unnecessarily harassed and victimized and therefore sought for impartial enquiry into the matter. Petitioner has thereafter brought on record Annexure P/14, P/15 and P/16 signed by various employees to point out that they had no complaint against the petitioner and allegations made against the petitioner in the communication Annexure P/13 is not correct. However, it is a case of the petitioner that he was called to Bhopal on 18.9.2008. While in Bhopal and when he was in the office of respondent No. 2, it is said that respondent No. 2 obtained a resignation from the petitioner in his own hand writing which the petitioner submitted. According to the petitioner even though under the influence of respondent No. 2 on 18.9.2008 he submitted a resignation but in the resignation it was pointed out by him that the resignation should be accepted after a period of one month, he should be relieved only after one month and thereafter, the petitioner again explained the circumstances existing against him and sought for an impartial enquiry and indicated a hope that justice would be done to him. It is a case of the petitioner that after he came back to Anooppur. He withdrew the resignation vide Annexure P/17 on 23.9.2008 which was submitted in the office at Anooppur at 10.30 a.m. and was dispatched to respondent No. 2 immediately, In-spite thereof, in the afternoon vide impugned order Annexure P/18 dated 23.9.2008 the resignation of the petitioner was accepted forthwith and after dispensing with the notice period it was indicated that the petitioner shall be entitled to salary for a period of 26 days.