Back
2022 Supreme(Jhk) 1216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Lakshmi Narayan Prasad, son of Late Sitaram Sah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 403 of 2020
Decided on : 02-12-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Gaurav Raj, Advocate
The main legal point established is that a contractual engagee has no right to be retained in service if the employer is not willing to extend the contract.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Termination of Contractual Employee - Appointment letter dated 06.06.1997 - Sections 1, 2, 3 of the Contract Act, 1872 - Summary: The court upheld the termination of a contractual employee based on serious lapses in duty and non-satisfactory performance. The decision was supported by the principle that a contractual engagee has no right to be retained in service if the employer is not willing to extend the contract.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a contractual Campus Supervisor, was terminated from service based on serious lapses in duty and non-satisfactory performance. The petitioner raised the issue of non-initiation of departmental proceeding and violation of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on a contractual basis and serious lapses in duty were found by a fact-finding committee. The court upheld the termination based on the contractual nature of the appointment and non-satisfactory performance.
Issues: The issues involved the termination of a contractual employee without initiation of departmental proceeding and the violation of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a contractual engagee has no right to be retained in service if the employer is not willing to extend the contract, and therefore, the decision to rescind the contract and terminate the employee was valid.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the termination of the contractual employee was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 24.11.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4269 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been dismissed by declining to interfere with the order dated 20.06.2019 by which the writ petitioner has terminated with immediate effect.
2. The brief facts as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which require to be enumerated herein, read as under:
The writ petitioner was appointed on the post of Campus Supervisor, a class-III post in the Government Women Polytechnic Ranchi by appointment letter dated 06.06.1997 on contract. The writ petitioner, while working as such for a period of more than 22 years, raised his grievance for regularization in service which having not been considered, has filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4923 of 2015. The said writ petition, however, is still sub-judice before this Court.
The writ petitioner while working as such, was allotted with the work in Government Polytechnic Ranchi and during the service period, allegation has been levelled on the basis of the report dated 14.06.2019 of the two-men fact finding committee and the writ petitioner was terminated from service vide order dated 20.06.2019.
Being aggrieved with the same, a writ petition has been filed being W.P.(S) No. 4269 of 2019 in which the writ petitioner has taken the ground that without initiating any departmental proceeding, the writ petitioner has been terminated which is against the principles of natural justice.
The respondent-State has taken the plea that since the writ petitioner was appointed on contractual basis, therefore, there is no requirement to take penal action by initiating a departmental proceeding rather the appointment can be dispensed with by following the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment.
The learned Single Judge, considering the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, has refused to interfere with the order of termination while dismissing the writ petition, which is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal.
3. Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has assailed the order on the ground that that issue of non-initiation of the departmental proceeding has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge and thereby, the non-observance of the principles of natural justice has been discarded while showing no interference with the order of termination dated 20.06.2019 and hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires interference.
4. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State has defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It has been contended that the writ petitioner since is an appointee on contractual basis, as such, there is no requirement to initiate a departmental proceeding rather the requirement before taking such decision is to follow the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment.
Here, in the given facts of the case, serious allegation has come against the writ petitioner in a two-men fact finding committee wherein the nature of allegation considering to be serious, a decision has been taken to rescind the contract.
It has further been contended that the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the nature of appointment to be on contractual basis as also considering the latches on the part of the writ petitioner which led the competent authority to take decision of rescinding the contract, is correct in not interfering with the order dated 20.06.2019 and hence, the same requires no interference.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge.
6. The issue has been raised on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner that departmental proceeding has not been initiated before terminating the writ petitioner, as such, the order o
