Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
Ghanshyam Karma v. Principal Secretary State of M. P.
& Others
Writ Petition No. 13316 of 2013 (Indore);
Decided on 31.10.2022
(1) Natural Justice -- impugned order does not disclose reasoning as to how and why reply of petitioner was not found satisfactory -- order is contrary to principles of natural justice, arbitrary and unjust -- cannot be sustained. [Paras 9 & 11
(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 226/227 -- maintainability of writ petition -- contractual appointment -- writ petition not maintainable -- only remedy is to seek damages, not to seek specific performance of contract of personal service. SBI (2008) 8 SCC 92 followed. 2017 SCC Online MP 78 referred to. [Paras 10 & 11
(3) Civil Services -- contract employee -- has no right to have his services regularized -- nature of relief is only damages, not specific performance. 2021 SCC Online MP 684 and Writ Petition No. 15502 of 2016 decided on 11.11.2016 relied on. [Para 10
(4) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- contract employee -- termination of service -- when Court is only considering process of termination, dehors relief of specific performance or reinstatement
-- it cannot close its eyes to order which is stigmatic, contrary to principles of natural justice, arbitrary and unjust -- to relegate petitioner to file suit for damages would be to award him civil death by curtailing his legal right to be re-employed in any other public or private employment -- once stigmatic and cryptic order is passed, doors of all other employments are closed to him -- this runs contrary to mandate of Arts. 14 and 16 of Constitution -- impugned order cannot be sustained in eyes of law -- quashed -- respondents directed to pass reasoned and speaking order afresh, on merits, in accordance with law and after giving due opportunity of hearing to petitioner. 2017 SCC Online MP 78 (2008) 8 SCC 92, Writ Petition No. 5013 of 2017 decided on 6.9.2021, 2016 SCC Online MP 10905 and 2021 SCC Online MP 684 distinguished. (2022) 6 SCC 346, Writ Petition No. 7332 of 2017 decided on 7.11.2017, Special Appeal No. 259 of 2021 (All.), Writ Petition No. 5740 of 2006 (Bom.), Writ Petition No. 132286 of 2018, Writ Petition No. 4589 of 2010 and 2018 (2) MPLJ 689 referred to. [Paras 12 & 14
¼1½ uSlfxZd U;k; && vkf{kIr vkns'k esa bl ckjs esa rdZ.kk izdV ugha fd ;kph dk mÙkj dSls vkSj D;ksa lek/kkuizn ugha ik;k x;k && vkns'k uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa ds izfrdwy] euekuk vkSj vU;k;iw.kZ && fLFkj ugha j[kk tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 9 ,oa 11
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226@227 && fjV ;kfpdk pyus ;ksX; gksuk && lafonkRed fu;qfDr && fjV ;kfpdk pyus ;ksX; ugha && ,d ek= mipkj uqdlkuh dh bZIlk dk gS] oS;fDrd lsok dh lafonk ds fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k dh bZIlk dk ughaA ¼2008½8 ,l lh lh 92 vuqlfjrA 2017 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,e ih 78 ¼mPpre U;k-½ fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 10 ,oa 11
¼3½ flfoy lsok && lafonk deZpkjh && viuh lsok fu;fer djkus dk vfèkdkj ugha && vuqrks"k dh izÑfr uqdlkuh dh gh gS] fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k dh ugha 2021 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,e ih 684 rFkk fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 15502 lu~ 2016 fu.khZr fnukad 11-11-2016 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 10
¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && lafonk deZpkjh && lsoklekfIr && tc U;k;ky; }kjk fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vFkok iqu%LFkkiu ds vuqrks"k ls vlac)] dsoy lsoklekfIr dh izfØ;k ij fopkj fd;k tk jgk gks && og ,sls vkns'k ls viuh vk¡[ksa ugha ewan ldrk tks dyaddkjh] uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa ds izfrdwy] euekuk vkSj vU;k;iw.kZ gS && ;kph dks uqdlkuh ds fy, okn izLrqr djus ds fy, okil Hkstuk vU; fdlh Hkh yksd ;k futh fu;sktu esa iqufuZ;ksftr fd, tkus ds mlds vf/kdkj dks de dj mls flfoy e`R;q nsuk gksxk && dyaddkjh vkSj xwढ+ vkns'k ikfjr fd, tkus ij mlds fy, vU; lHkh fu;kstu ds }kj can gks tkrs gSa && ;g lafo/kku ds vuq-14 vkSj 16 dh vkKk ds izfrdwy gS && vkf{kIr vkns'k fof/k dh n`f"V esa fLFkj ugha j[kk tk ldrk && vfHk[kafMr && izR;FkhZx.k dks u, fljs ls xq.kkxq.k ij] fofèk ds vuqlkj rFkk ;kph dks lquokbZ dk lE;d~ volj nsus ds i'pkr~ ldkj.k vkSj vk[;kid vkns'k ikfjr djus dk funs'kA 2017 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,e ih 78] ¼2008½8 ,l lh lh 92] fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 5013 lu~ 2017 lu~ 2017 fu.khZr fnukad 6-9-2021] 2016 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,e ih 10905 rFkk 2021 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,e ih 684 izHksfnrA ¼2022½6 ,l lh lh 346 fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 7332 lu~ 2017 fu.khZr fnukad 7-11-2017] fo'ks"k vihy Ø- 259 lu~ 2021 ¼byk-½] fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 5740 lu~ 2006 ¼cacbZ½] fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 132286 lu~ 2018] fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 4589 lu~ 2010 rFkk 2018¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 689 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 12 ,oa 14
ORDER
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28.10.2013, passed by the respondent No.3/National Rural Health Mission, Bhopal whereby the petitioner’s services have been terminated on the ground of his having committed financial irregularities.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on contractual basis vide order dated 18.12.2006, on the post of District Accounts Manager in National Rural Health Mission. The contract was initially for a period of 2 years, however, subsequently it was extended from time to time and lastly, it was extended vide order dated 21.6.2013 till 31.3.2014. While the petitioner was posted at Jhabua, certain complaints about his financial irregularities were brought to the notice of the authority and thus a show cause notice dated 1.10.2013 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.6/Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Jhabua. The reply of which was also given by the petitioner on 17.10.2013, and thereafter another notice was issued to the petitioner on 3.10.2013 and its reply was also given by the petitioner on 25.10.2013, however, the reply filed by the petitioner was found to be not satisfactory and thus, his services were done away with vide order dated 28.10.2013.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 28.10.2013 is a cryptic order and has been passed without conducting any inquiry in the matter and only on the basis of the replies filed by the petitioner, the order has been passed and that too is without assigning any reason at all. Counsel has also submitted that the petitioner was appointed after due process and thus, he could not have been removed in such unceremonious manner.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out and the petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioner was a contractual employee and is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction, and at the most, he can seek damages under the Specific Relief Act as has also been opined by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anita Sant v. State of M.P. and others reported as 2017 SCC Online MP 78. Counsel has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of SBI and others v. S.N. Goyal reported as (2008) 8 SCC 92 to buttress his arguments. It also submitted that even otherwise, before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice and only after considering his reply, the impugned order has been passed. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decisions in the case of Sanjay Upadhyay v. State of M.P. and others passed in W.P. No.5013/2017 on 6.9.2021, Rajendra Prasad Bakoriya v. Secretary the State of M.P. passed in W.P. No.8150/2011 on 26.8.2016 reported as 2016 SCC Online MP 10905 as also the decision rendered in the case of Akram Jafri and others v. State of M.P. and others reported as 2021 SCC Online MP 684, State Bank of India Vs. S.N. Goyal reported as (2008) 8 SCC 92.
5. Learned counsel for the State has also opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out.
6. In rebuttal, Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in respect of the identically placed employees namely Rahul Jain and Lalit Sharma, this Court has already entertained the petitions and thus on the ground of parity also, this petition deserves to be allowed. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 7.11.2017, passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Jabalpur in W.P. No.7332/2017, in which case, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Goyal (supra), has also been taken note of and the petition was allowed as the impugned order was cryptic in nature. Thus, it is submitted that the petition be allowed.
The court upheld the termination of a contractual employee as valid, emphasizing that rights are governed by the contract terms, and principles of natural justice do not apply in the same manner to c....
The court affirmed that natural justice principles apply even in contractual employment but can be flexible; proper opportunity must be given, but not always in the traditional sense.
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.
Termination of contractual employment must adhere to principles of natural justice, especially when allegations of misconduct are involved.
A termination order can be deemed stigmatic if issued without proper inquiry, violating principles of natural justice, necessitating reinstatement of the affected party.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
