TAPAS KUMAR DAS Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a Diploma Civil Engineer and as such, was placed in a panel prepared by the Engineer-in-Chief (Civil), Odisha. On 23/7/2005 his name was sponsored by Engineer-in-Chief (Civil) to the State Project Director, Odisha Primary Education Programme Authority (OPEPA) for being contractually engaged for implementation of School building under Sarva Sikshya Abhiyan (SSA). An engagement order was issued in his favour on 25/8/2005 appointing him as Technical Consultant in the District Project Office, Mayurbhanj on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.6,000.00per month, pursuant to which he joined on 1/9/2005. He was initially appointed as Technical Consultant in Karanjia and Thakurmunda Block and thereafter transferred to Sukruli Block in April, 2006, Jamda Block in November, 2009 and Tiring Block in June, 2013. While he was working as such, he was served with show cause notices regarding negligence in duty, to which he replied. On 3/4/2014, the Collector-cum-Chairman, SSA, Mayurbhanj (Opposite Party No.4) issued a show cause to him for his poor performance in completing the account finalization of each projects. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply on 5/4/2014 specifically refuting the allegations. It was stated that the allegations are baseless, inasmuch as the delay in completion of work of the School buildings was because of other reasons like lack of coordination between teachers of the School and Village Education Committee, over whom he had no control. He had in the past reported the same before the Disciplinary Authorities and the Collector but there was no response. On 1/7/2014, the service of the petitioner was terminated on the ground of gross-negligence in duty and insincerity towards official work invoking Rule 28(i)(iv)(c) of OPEPA Service Rules and Regulations, 1996 (in short 'Regulations, 1996'). Since reply to the show cause submitted by the petitioner had not been taken into consideration before terminating his service, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.12947 of 2014. However, during pendency of the said case, the petitioner preferred appeal on 17/8/2015 before the Chairman, OPEPA under Rule 33 of Regulations, 1996. The appeal was rejected by order dtd. 19/8/2016 of the State Project Director basing on the report of the Additional Director General and the performance appraisal report. The petitioner therefore, amended the writ petition to incorporate such facts. On 10/7/2017 this Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the order of the appellate authority and remitted the matter to the said authority for reconsideration, as the State Project Director was not competent to pass the order and the order passed was a non-speaking one. Being thus remitted, the appellate authority heard the petitioner in person but rejected the appeal vide order dtd. 10/10/2017 confirming the order of termination. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief;

(2.) The case of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 is that the engagement of the petitioner was contractual in nature, renewable from time to time subject to satisfactory performance of work. Since the petitioner failed to satisfy the said requirement, his contractual engagement was rightly terminated as per Rule 28 of the Regulations, 1996. It is their further case that the petitioner was not able to complete the work assigned to him in each of the years beginning from 2011-12 to 2013-14. He did not take sincere and effective steps for timely completion of the project, which is time bound in nature.

(3.) The District Project Coordinator (opposite party No.5) has also filed a counter stating more or less the same thing as the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. It is reiterated that the performance of the petitioner towards completion of the projects and finalization of the account of the completed projects did not improve. He was therefore, asked to show cause on multiple occasions but he could not offer any satisfactory explanation. His poor performance was against the terms of reference of his engagement and therefore, he was rightly terminated. The petitioner also could not present any evidence before the appellate authority to refute the allegations, for which his appeal was rightly rejected.