MANOJ SINGH TOMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal under Sec. 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred taking exception to the order dated 04 th August, 2023 passed in Writ Petition No.11296 of 2021 by the learned Single Judge whereby petition preferred by the appellant/ petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) Precisely stated facts of the case are that appellant/ petitioner was appointed as District Community Mobilizer on contract basis on 30-09- 2014 and joined his services on 1/10/2014. The job of the appellant was to facilitate Asha and Asha (Sahyogi) Workers and his role came into play only after appointment of some Asha and Asha (Sahyogi) Workers. It appears that petitioner appointed some Asha and Asha Sahyogi Workers at village level and certain irregularities were caused in their selection process. Therefore, Collector, Morena wrote a letter dtd. 30/9/2019 addressed to Mission Director National Health Mission for termination of contractual services of the petitioner on the ground that he had committed alleged illegalities and irregularities in the selection process of Asha workers for the year 2016-17 and 2017-18. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 5/10/2019. Appellant replied to the same vide reply dtd. 12/10/2019 explaining all the allegations leveled against him. Meanwhile, an enquiry committee consisting of three members was constituted. After conducting due enquiry, the Regional Director (Health Services), Gwalior Division submitted enquiry report dtd. 19/8/2020, wherein; after considering the reply filed by the appellant/ petitioner and contents of the enquiry report, the appellant/ petitioner was found to be mischievous while tempering with the documents and not following the prescribed procedure in appointment of different Asha workers. Thus, contractual services of the petitioner were terminated. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached the writ Court. His argument was based upon the ground of non-grant of opportunity of hearing.

(3.) The learned Writ Court after considering the rival submissions, came to the conclusion that petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing and since matter pertains to termination of contract therefore, petitioner does not deserve any relief. Accordingly, writ petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order of the writ Court, petitioner approached this Court by filing instant writ appeal.