SUPTA CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shortly stated the facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed on 17.3.2003 as Data Entry Operator under the respondents. This was preceded by advertisement and selection. In the advertisement as well as in the order of appointment, the appointment was indicated to be on contractual basis for a period of one year. The petitioner while was serving as such was issued with a letter dated 16.6.2003 by the appointing authority indicating her irregularity in attendance and unsatisfactory performance of duty. By the said letter she was directed to improve herself within one month. This was followed by yet another letter dated 31.7.2003 indicating non- improvement in her performance and was given a further one month time to improve in her performance. Thereafter by the impugned letter dated 30.8.2003, the services of the petitioner was terminated with effect from 1.9.2003 on ground of unsatisfactory performance in discharging duties and failure to improve inspite of warning given to her. The petitioner submitted representation dated 10.9.2003 making a grievance against such termination of service. Same having failed to yield any result, the petitioner approached this court by initiating the present writ proceeding.

(2.) The respondents have filed their affidavit indicating poor performance on the part of the petitioner in discharge of her duties. In the affidavit it has been indicated that the petitioner was irregular in her attendance and disobeyed the orders of the superior authority. Inspite of warning given to improve in her performance, the petitioner failed to improve and accordingly her service was terminated. The petitioner denying the allegation made in the affidavit-in-opposition has filed an affidavit-in-reply. In the said reply the petitioner has taken the stand that the respondents did not provide any opportunity to the petitioner to improve in her performance and that the order of termination being on the ground of unsatisfactory performance of duty such as irregular attendance and disobedience to the superiors, same is stigmatic.

(3.) I have heard Mr. J. L. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R. K. Bora, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respondents. Mr. Sarkar in his persuasive pursuits submitted that on the face of it, the order of termination is stigmatic and not a termination simpliciter. Referring to the warning letters by which the petitioner was warned to improve in her performance as well as the statements made in the affidavit, he strenuously argued that although the termination was on the alleged ground of poor performance, but in fact same was resorted to accommodate person of the choice of the respondent No. 4. He further submitted that before terminating the services of the petitioner on the grounds mentioned in the aforesaid letters and in the impugned order itself, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of being heard by way of issuing a show cause notice. In support of his arguments, Mr. Sarkar, relied on two decisions of the Apex Court as reported in AIR 1988 SC 686 (K. I. Shephared V.U.O.I) and (2000) 3 SCC 239 (V.P. Ahuja V. State of Punjab).