Back
2021 Supreme(P&H) 374
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUDHIR MITTAL, J.
Surender Kumar Saini – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and Others – Respondents
CWP No. 20611 of 2020
Decided On : 07-04-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gopal Soni.
Mr. Sanjay Mittal.
The decision not to extend the contract of a contract employee is within the administrative domain and cannot be interfered with unless shown to be mala-fide or arbitrary.
Headnote:
Reinstatement - Contract Employment - The court held that the decision not to extend the contract of the petitioner was within the administrative domain and not arbitrary or mala-fide. The petitioner, being a contract employee, could not claim reinstatement based on the enquiry report clearing him of embezzlement. The court emphasized that the petitioner could have applied for a fresh contract if interested, but not reinstatement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, appointed as Assistant Accountant on a contract basis, was accused of embezzlement. After a fresh enquiry cleared him of embezzlement but found him guilty of improper accounting, his request for reinstatement was denied.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decision not to extend the petitioner's contract was not illegal, as it was within the administrative domain. The petitioner, being a contract employee, could not claim reinstatement based on the enquiry report clearing him of embezzlement.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's request for reinstatement after being cleared of embezzlement but found guilty of improper accounting, and the legality of the decision not to extend his contract.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the decision not to extend the contract of a contract employee is within the administrative domain and cannot be interfered with unless shown to be mala-fide or arbitrary. The petitioner, being a contract employee, could not claim reinstatement based on the enquiry report clearing him of embezzlement.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in the petitioner's claim for reinstatement.
JUDGMENT :
SUDHIR MITTAL, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Accountant on contract basis in the National Rural Health Mission on 23.1.2012. The contract was upto 31.3.2012. Thereafter, it was extended from time to time. A complaint dated 14.7.2014 was received against the petitioner that he had embezzled an amount of Rs. 93,000/-. An enquiry was conducted based on the complaint and vide order dated 30.6.2015, it was decided not to extend the contract of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.7.2015 and to register a criminal case against him. Aggrieved, the petitioner requested for another enquiry vide his application dated 8.3.2016, whereupon, a fresh enquiry was conducted and a report dated 16.10.2018 was submitted, according to which, the petitioner was found to be guilty only of improper accounting. Thus, a recommendation was made not to proceed further with registration of a criminal case. The recommendation made by the enquiry officer was accepted by the Mission Director vide his communication dated 26.5.2011 and the pending complaint was directed to be filed. Meanwhile, the petitioner had made a request vide his communication dated 21.6.2019 asking for reinstatement, but the same has been denied vide impugned order dated 16.7.2020.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that upon a fresh enquiry, it has been determined that the petitioner was not guilty of embezzlement. The interest of justice would thus require that he be reinstated.
3. Learned State counsel submits that the services of the petitioner were never terminated. Upon expiry of his contract on 30.6.2015, the same was not extended w.e.f. 1.7.2015. Even the enquiry report dated 16.10.2018 holds that the petitioner was re-miss in his duties as Accountant and was guilty of following unauthorized accounting procedures. Thus, non extension of the contract of the petitioner is not illegal. If at all, the petitioner was interested, he could have applied for a fresh contract, but he has not done so.
4. A perusal of the aforementioned facts shows that on account of the complaint dated 14.7.2015, an enquiry was conducted and based thereupon, it was decided not to extend the contract of the petitioner. Whether, contract is to be extended or not is purely in the administrative domain and cannot be interfered with unless the exercise is shows to be mala-fide or arbitrary. That is not the case of the petitioner. Claiming reinstatement on the basis of enquiry report dated 16.10.2015 is impermissible in law as the petitioner was not a regular employee. At best, he could have asked for fresh appointment on contract basis for which he needed to apply pursuant to any advertisement that may have been issued. The enquiry report has held that criminal prosecution may be dropped and the same has been done and thus, there is no illegality in the actions of the respondents.
5. In view of above, the writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.
