MANISH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order (P-5) of termination of his services passed by the Secretary, M. P. State Legal Services Authority.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts indicate that petitioner was appointed as Asstt. Grade III on compassionate basis. Appointment order (P-l) was passed on 28-7-^99. Petitioner worked with dedication, devotion and honesty and no adverse remark was communicated. On 14-5-2001 respondent No. 3, District Legal Services Authority, Raigarh, passed an order (P-2) and relieved the petitioner from Raigarh and directed him to report the Secretary, M. P. State Legal Services Authority, Jabalpur. Petitioner reported to the Secretary on 19-5-2001, no posting was given so that he could get the salary. An application (P-4) was submitted on 21-6-2001, An order (P-5) terminating his services was passed on 21-8-2001. No reason has been mentioned to terminate the Service. Neither inquiry has been held nor any show-cause notice was issued, thus, the order is illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be quashed.

(3.) A return has been filed by respondent No. 2, M. P. State Legal Services Authority. It is contended in the return that District Legal Services Authority, Raigarh, has reported vide memo (R-2/3) dated 14-5-2001 that during the period petitioner worked, he had taken 21 days of casual leave, 41 days of earned leave, 10 days of commuted leave and 118 days of leave without pay. It was further reported that petitioner was habitual of remaining absent and leaving the headquarter without permission. He has also not passed Hindi Typing Examination nor did he make any effort to pass the said examination. He did not carry out the routine work and failed to carry out the orders given to him by superior authority. It is further reported that he did not remain on his seat and is found near Panthelas. It was also reported that petitioner was issued show-cause notice and was given character roll warning for unauthorised absence, leaving the headquarter without permission. Respondent No. 3 was fed up with the functioning of the petitioner as he did not improve at all, thus, passed an order (R-4) dated 14-5-2001 relieving the petitioner from his office with direction to report in the office of respondent No. 2, M. P. State Legal Services Authority, Jabalpur. Petitioner did report for duty on 19-5-2001 but left the office without any information. He submitted an application on 21-6-2001 for payment of his salary and allowances but then he again remained absent from the office and did not attend the office thereafter. Under sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (4) of Rule 16 of the M. P. Legal Services Authority Rules, 1996, disciplinary matters shall be governed by the State Govt. Rules and under sub-rule (4) of Rule 16, the employees of District Legal Services Authority shall be under general control of State Authority. Petitioner's service was purely temporary, liable to be terminated at any time without notice, thus, the services were dispensed with as per order (P-5) dated 21-8-2001. Since the petitioner was temporary employee it was not necessary to hold any inquiry in respect of his irregular functioning. The respondent has already stated the reasons behind his termination, a person who takes leave of and on remains absent without permission and does not work, can not be kept in the employment at the cost of public exchequer.