The termination of services should be made by the appointing authority, and proper opportunity of hearing must be provided before making a decision with serious implications.

ORDER :

Sanjay Dwivedi, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the legality, validity and propriety of the orders dated 18.08.2017 (Annexure P/7) and 22.03.2018 (Annexure P/16) whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated and the appeal preferred against the order of termination has also been dismissed.

2. The services of the petitioner have been terminated vide order dated 18.08.2017 (Annexure P/7) by the respondent No. 3 on the ground that she has committed a misconduct and as per Condition No. 31 of the contract executed between her and the employer, her services can be terminated. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner and vide order dated 22.03.2018 (Annexure P/16) the same was also dismissed by the appellate authority.

3. The challenge is made basically on the ground that the order dated 18.08.2017 terminating the services of the petitioner has been passed by an incompetent authority as the appointing authority of the petitioner is Chief Executive Officer and only he can terminate the services of the petitioner invoking the power provided under Condition No. 31 of the contract and secondly on the ground that the order is punitive in nature because the services of the petitioner have been terminated alleging misconduct against her as defined under Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1965'). However, no enquiry has been conducted by the respondents to determine the misconduct of the petitioner and as such the impugned order has been issued in violation of principle of natural justice.

4. To resolve the controversy involved in the case, necessary facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Accountant vide order dated 29.04.2008 in the respondent-department w.e.f. 12.05.2008 and worked till 30.04.2012. Thereafter, an advertisement was issued in the year 2012 for appointment on the post of Assistant State Project Manager (Finance). The petitioner being a qualified person applied for the said post and finally she was appointed on the said post and accordingly the order of appointment was issued in her favour on 18.09.2012 (Annexure P/2). A contract was also executed between the petitioner and respondents containing the conditions of service of the petitioner. As per the petitioner, she had performed the duties with full devotion and time and again her work was appreciated by her superiors and letters of appreciation were also issued to her.

5. On 13.07.2017, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging therein that one Alok Mishra, who was working in the department on deputation, was repatriated to his parent department, but, even after his repatriation, salary was paid to him for the months of May and June, 2017 and the amount of salary was deposited in his bank account. The said financial irregularity was pointed out by the representative of the Finance Section to the petitioner and she was made aware of the same, but, despite assuring that the said mistake would be rectified, nothing was done by the petitioner, which indicates that the petitioner had deliberately favoured the said employee and paid salary to him for two months unnecessarily. As such the allegations of misappropriation of money and causing loss to the department were made against the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to submit her explanation as to why for such misconduct and financial irregularity, her contract appointment be not terminated and appropriate legal action be not taken against her. The petitioner submitted reply to the said show cause notice on 17.07.2017 (Annexure P/5) explaining therein as to how the said mistake was occurred and according to her it was only a bona fide mistake and she had no intention to favour any one and to put the department in loss. The petitioner has also clarified that whatever monetary loss was caused to the department due to such mistake, she had d