SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(MP) 147

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Anand Pathak and Binod Kumar Dwivedi, JJ.
Manoj Singh Tomar v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Writ Appeal No. 2336 of 2023 (Gwalior): against the order dated 4.8.2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 11296 of 2021;
Decided on 18.3.2024

Advocates:
S. K. Jain for appellant; Vivek Khedkar,
Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4/State; Sankalp Sharma for respondent No. 2.

Headnote:

(1) Natural Justice -- opportunity of hearing -- contract employee -- termination of service -- terms and conditions of contract assume importance -- nonetheless, employee required to be afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing before proceeding against him. (2010) 11 SCC 278 and (2015) 8 SCC 519 followed. [Para 11]

(2) Civil Services -- contract employee -- termination of service

-- opportunity of hearing -- appellant participated in enquiry conducted by committee -- thereafter committee came to conclusion about culpability of appellant -- appellant was again show caused by Mission Director before taking final decision -- impugned order passed after considering his reply -- held -- it cannot be said that appellant was not afforded any opportunity of hearing -- held further -- appellant is a contractual employee, not a civil or government servant therefore provisions of M. P. Civil Services (Classification and Control) Rules, 1966 would not be attracted with full force. (2010) 11 SCC 278 and (2015) 8 SCC 519 followed. (2021) 14 SCC 668 and 2018 SCC Online MP 1774 referred to. [Paras 13 & 16]

(3) Natural Justice -- opportunity of hearing -- contract employee -- termination of service -- contractual employee of National Health Mission -- competent authority can provide oral or written opportunity of hearing to employee. [Paras 14 & 15]

(4) Civil Services (Classification and Control) Rules, 1966 (M. P.) -- applicability of Rules -- appellant contractual employee -- not a civil or government servant -- provisions would not be attracted with full force. [Para 16]

¼1½ uSlfxZd U;k; & lquokbZ dk volj & lafonk deZpkjh & lsoklekfIr & lafonk ds fuca/ku rFkk 'krsZ egRoiw.kZ gks tkrs gSa & fQj Hkh] deZpkjh ds fo:) dk;Zokgh djus ds iwoZ mls lquokbZ dk ;qfä;qä volj nsuk vko';dA ¼2010½ 11 ,llhlh 278 rFkk ¼2015½ 8 ,llhlh 519 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 11½

¼2½ flfoy lsok & lafonk deZpkjh & lsoklekfIr & lquokbZ dk volj & vihykFkhZ us lfefr }kjk dh xbZ tk¡p esa Hkkx fy;k & rnqijkar lfefr vihykFkhZ dh nksf"krk ds ckjs esa fu"d"kZ ij igq¡ph & vafre fofu'p;u djus ds iwoZ fe'ku funs'kd }kjk vihykFkhZ ls iqu% dkj.k crkus ds fy, dgk x;k & mlds mÙkj ij fopkj djus ds mijkar vkf{kIr vkns'k ikfjr & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd vihykFkhZ dks lquokbZ dk dksbZ volj ugha fn;k x;k & vkxs vfHkfuèkkZfjr & vihykFkhZ lafonk deZpkjh gS- flfoy ;k ljdkjh lsod ugha] vr% e-ç- flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k rFkk fu;a=.k½ fu;e] 1966 ds mica/k iwjs cy ds lkFk vk—"V ugha gksaxsA ¼2010½ 11 ,llhlh 278 rFkk ¼2015½ 8 ,llhlh 519 vuqlfjrA ¼2021½ 14 ,llhlh 668 rFkk 2018 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,eih 1774 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 13 ,oa 16½

¼3½ uSlfxZd U;k; & lquokbZ dk volj & lafonk deZpkjh & lsoklekfIr & jk"Vªh; LokLF; fe'ku dk lafonk deZpkjh & l{ke çkf/kdkjh deZpkjh dks ekSf[kd ;k fyf[kr lquokbZ dk volj ns ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 14 ,oa 15½

¼4½ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k rFkk fu;a=.k½ fu;e] 1966 ¼e-ç-½ & fu;e ykxw gksuk & vihykFkhZ lafonk deZpkjh & flfoy ;k ljdkjh lsod ugha & micaèk iwjs cy ds lkFk vk—"V ugha gksaxsA ¼iSjk 161½

ORDER

Pathak, J.--1. This writ appeal under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha. Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred taking exception to the order dated 4th August, 2023 passed in Writ Petition No.11296 of 2021 by the learned Single Judge whereby petition preferred by the appellant/ petitioner was dismissed.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that appellant/ petitioner was appointed as District Community Mobilizer on contract basis on 30.9.2014 and joined his services on 1.10.2014. The job of the appellant was to facilitate Asha and Asha (Sahyogi) Workers and his role came into play only after appointment of some Asha and Asha (Sahyogi) Workers. It appears that petitioner appointed some Asha & Asha Sahyogi Workers at village level and certain irregularities were caused in their selection process. Therefore, Collector, Morena wrote a letter dated 30.9.2019 addressed to Mission Director National Health Mission for termination of contractual services of the petitioner on the ground that he had committed alleged illegalities and irregularities in the selection process of Asha workers for the year 2016-17 and 2017-18. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 5.10.2019. Appellant replied to the same vide reply dated 12.10.2019 explaining all the allegations leveled against him. Meanwhile, an enquiry committee consisting of three members was constituted. After conducting due enquiry, the Regional Director (Health Services), Gwalior Division submitted enquiry report dated 19.8.2020, wherein; after considering the reply filed by the appellant/ petitioner and contents of the enquiry report, the appellant/ petitioner was found to be mischievous while tempering with the documents and not following the prescribed procedure in appointment of different Asha workers. Thus, contractual services of the petitioner were terminated. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached the writ Court. His argument was based upon the ground of non-grant of opportunity of hearing.

3. The learned Writ Court after considering the rival submissions, came to the conclusion that petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing and since matter pertains to termination of contract therefore, petitioner does not deserve any relief. Accordingly, writ petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order of the writ Court, petitioner approached this Court by filing instant writ appeal.

4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that appellant was never afforded adequate opportunity of hearing by the respondents, therefore, caused illegality. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Vinod Kumar Katheria reported in (2021) 14 SCC 668 and of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Malkhan Singh Malviya v. State of M.P. reported in 2018 SCC Online MP 1774.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents-State opposed the prayer and submits that it is not a case of non-grant of opportunity of hearing. It is a case where proper enquiry was conducted at the instance of Regional Director Health Services, Gwalior Division and opportunity of hearing was provided to the appellant by issuing show cause notice to him. Appellant responded to the same and after considering the contents of his reply, contractual services of the appellant have come to an end. Appellant/ petitioner is a contractual employee and terms and conditions of his services are governed by the contract itself.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/ National Health Mission Shri Sankalp Sharma also opposed the prayer and refers the modified Contractual Human Resources Manual, 2018 of National Health Mission as well as its clause 11.2. It clearly says that in case of any misconduct, involvement in financial irregularities, involvement in criminal act or involvement in any act which undermines the image of National Health Mission, oral or written opportunity of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top