AMRITA CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner is against the order dated 15.5.2014 and consequential order dated 29.5.2014 and the order of removal from service dated 4.6.2014 (Annexure P/11, P/12 and P/13 respectively)..

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed on contract basis on the post of Task Manager in the year 2007 at Jila Panchayat, Seoni after due selection under the Mid Day Meal Scheme introduced by the State Government. The services of the petitioner were found satisfactory and, therefore, the period of contract of the petitioner was extended continuously. The last extension was to end in the year 2014. However, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in respect of certain irregularities and though no financial irregularities were alleged against the petitioner, despite filing of the reply to the said show cause notice, the contract period of the petitioner was not extended. The Chief Executive Officer passed the first order on 15 th May, 2014 taking away the work assigned to the petitioner and handing it over to someone else. The proposal made for extension of contract appointment of the petitioner was not properly dealt with. On the other hand, on the lame excuses that after giving a show cause notice since a major misconduct of the petitioner was found proved, the recommendations were made not to extend the period of contract appointment of petitioner after 1.4.2014. As a consequence of passing of such order, the petitioner is said to be terminated from service vide order dated 4.6.2014.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that she was not responsible for any such misconduct, as alleged. In fact the job assigned to the petitioner was to verify the facts relating to utilization of the funds made available, submit the information in that respect and if approval was granted by the competent authority, to forward the same for payment to the concerned. It is contended that the proposal in that respect was made, which in fact was approved by the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat and then only the amount was disbursed. There was no occasion for the petitioner to make any interpolation in the signatures etc. Further the signatures on the sanction orders were not disputed. On the other hand, it was said that while endorsing the said orders to the concerned, signatures of the Chief Executive Officer of Jila Panchayat were scanned. That being so, there was no occasion to hold that a grave misconduct involving financial irregularities was committed by the petitioner on account of which her contract appointment was not to be extended. It is the case of the petitioner that in case there was any such allegation, in terms of the law laid down by this Court a detailed enquiry was required to be conducted and only if the misconduct was found proved after affording full opportunity of defence to the petitioner, such an action could have been taken against the petitioner. Malafides are also alleged in exercise of powers by the authorities alleging that only because the Chief Executive Officer was prejudiced, the charge of the post was taken from the petitioner and was delivered to someone else. In view of this, the main assail is to the order of refusing to grant extension of contract appointment and termination of the contract appointment.