SNIGDHA BHATTACHARYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Majumder, learned ASG appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner, in short, is that his contractual engagement in the post of Administrative Officer at Composite Regional Centre (CRC) Tripura has not been extended on taking some "materials" into consideration behind her back. Those materials are stigmatic on her efficiency, integrity and performance during the contractual tenure. There is no dispute at the bar that the petitioner was initially engaged on 22.05.2018 for a period of 6 (six) months. The said tenure got extended by the office order dated 13.06.2018 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) for another period of 6 (six) months w.e.f. 04.06.2018. By the office order dated 04.12.2018, again the said period was extended for one year w.e.f. 05.12.2018 and finally by the office order dated 12.12.2019 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), the said tenure got further extended for 6 (six) months w.e.f. 06.12.2019. The engagement of the petitioner was not extended, thereafter. Instead, by the office memorandum dated 26.06.2020 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), her services got terminated w.e.f 25.07.2020. For purpose of reference, the entire text of the office memorandum dated 26.06.2020 is reproduced hereunder:

(3.) It is apparent from reading of the said office memorandum dated 26.06.2020 that the said office memorandum was asked to be treated as the one month notice under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 and thus, as is contemplated, this termination order will be effective from 25.07.2020. If it were a termination simpliciter, perhaps the petitioner will have no grievance at all. But, the respondents themselves have lifted the veil by stating at Para 10 of the reply, filed by the them, that the petitioner was negligent and adamant. Noticing purported deficiency in the performance of the petitioner, the Director, NILD (National Institute for Loco motor Disabilities (Divyangjan) gave a chance to rectify the petitioner's behaviour "by verbal warning before her last extension". The last extension as stated was for the period of 6 (six) months w.e.f 06.12.2019. But, in the last 6 (six) months, as asserted by the respondents, the petitioner was found "very much negligent" about her office work. That apart she had also misbehaved with other staffs in the institute and caused "insubordination" to her reporting officer. In that situation, the petitioner was given verbal warning to improve performance and if not improved within the period as indicated, action may be initiated which might even attract termination of service. During the last six months, the petitioner's performance was not satisfactory and the Director, CRC, SRE- Tripura has received many complaints against the petitioner.