DEEPAK NAGLE Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of learned counsel for parties, matter is heard finally. In this writ petition the petitioner inter aha has assailed the validity of the orders dated 28-12-2012 and 22-1-2013.

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Engineer on contract basis vide order dated 9-1-2008. The petitioner got executed the work of construction of 500 meters of drain in Gram Panchayat Bada Gaon, Janpad Panchayat Teonthar, District Rewa. The work of construction of drain was commenced on 3-7-2010 and was completed on 31-8-2010 and a completion certificate was also issued on the same day. It is the case of the petitioner that drain of 500 meters in length was constructed with total expenditure of Rs. 2,82,393/-. The Sub Divisional Officer issued two show cause notices dated 5-10-2011 and 25-1-2011 contained in Annexures-P-6 and P-7, respectively to the petitioner in which inter aha it was alleged that the Gram Panchayat Badagaon had got the sanction of construction of drain of 250 meters in length under the guidance of the petitioner. In respect of the aforesaid work a complaint was received which was investigated into and it was found out that a sum of Rs. 2,83,393/- was spent against sanctioned amount of Rs. 2,84,000/- for construction of 225 meters drain in length against the sanctioned length of 250 meters. It was alleged that the petitioner had done excess valuation in respect of the work in question to the tune of Rs. 1,53,759/-. The petitioner was accordingly asked to show cause as to why his services be not dispensed with. The petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. It was inter alia pointed out in the reply that total length of drain which was constructed was 500 meters but the investigating team has got the inspection done behind the back of the petitioner and therefore half of the length was measured whereas the entire work was done and the completion certificate in this regard was also issued. Thereafter, again a show cause notice dated 3-12-2012 was issued to the petitioner by the Collector. The petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid show cause notice, however, by an order dated 20-12-2012 the services of the petitioner were dispensed with on the ground that his reply was not found satisfactory. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred an appeal. The aforesaid order was affirmed in appeal by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 22nd January, 2013. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that services of the petitioner who was a contractual employee have been terminated by a non-speaking order without affording him proper opportunity of hearing. It was further submitted that the investigation was carried out behind the back of the petitioner. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on order dated 20th November, 2012 passed in the case of Makhan Lal Ahirwar vs. State of M.P., W.P. No. 5098/2012. On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that the opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and since the reply submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory, therefore, his services were dispensed with.