SUNDER LAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was given appointment as 'safai kamgar'. Letter of appointment is Annexure P/2. This appointment was made on probation. The period of probation was 2 years. There was further stipulation in the order of appointment that the period of probation would be extended. This order of appointment issued by the Chief Municipal Officer on 15th of July, 1987 stand withdrawn by the same officer vide Annexure P/1. In Annexure P/1, it is mentioned that services of the petitioner have brought to an end in view of some directions given by the Director, Urban Administration, Bhopal. The respondents have filed the reply. The stand taken in the reply is that an enquiry has been conducted by Addl. Deputy Director of Urban Administration. This enquiry was initiated because of a complaint having been received in the aforementioned office. In the enquiry so conducted, it was found that several irregularities were committed. The irregularities have not been spelled out in the return. It is further submitted that the applications from Employment Exchange were not invited and the selection process was merely an eye wash. It is these factors which according to the State led it to give directions to the Chief Municipal Officer. It is in pursuance of the above direction, the order in question has been passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on probation and if during the period of probation, the services are to be terminated, even then, the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that appointing authority was Chief Municipal Officer. It is that authority which was supposed to apply its mind independently. If that has not been done and if the appointing authority has acted at the behest of a third person then that order cannot be sustained.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner is placing reliance on a judgment given by the Supreme Court of India in the case reported as Shravan Kumar Jha and others v. State of Bihar and others AIR 1991 SC 309. In the above case, teachers were appointed by the District Superintendent of School. Appointments were cancelled on the ground that the aforementioned functionary has no authority to make appointment. As no hearing opportunity was granted, the termination orders were set -aside. The relevant observations are made as under: