Back
2016 Supreme(Megh) 99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.
Shri Rramberco M. Marak - Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya - Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 35 of 2015
Decided On : 15-12-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. P.T. Sangma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, Advocate
Temporary employees can be summarily discharged for unsatisfactory performance and misconduct as per the terms of their contractual appointment.
Headnote:
Termination - Contractual Appointment - Data Entry Operator - Appointment Terms - [Data Entry Operator] - [Termination] - [Terms and conditions for appointment of Data Entry Operator-Cum-Office Assistant in the office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools dated 28th July, 2010, inter-alia, provides as under: (1) That the appointment is purely contractual and temporary. (2) That the post is likely to be abolished as and when Govt. of India stops providing funds under MME for the purpose of hiring the services of MIS- Coordinator and Data Entry Operator-Cum- Office Assistant. (3) That appointee is liable to be summarily discharged from this job due to unsatisfactory performance and misconduct of any kind.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Data Entry Operator, was terminated from his contractual position due to irregular attendance and unsatisfactory performance. The petitioner sought reinstatement and release of unpaid salary.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's termination was in accordance with the terms and conditions of his contractual appointment, which allowed for summary discharge due to unsatisfactory performance and misconduct.
Issues: The issues revolved around the termination of the petitioner's contractual employment, release of unpaid salary, and the legality of the termination without a show cause notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the terms and conditions of the petitioner's contractual appointment, which permitted summary discharge for unsatisfactory performance and misconduct. The court also cited legal precedents establishing that temporary employees have no right to hold their positions and can be terminated without notice.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found no grounds to interfere with the respondent's decision to terminate the petitioner's services.
JUDGMENT :
V.P. VAISH, J.
1. The present petition is directed against the respondents for quashing the impugned order dated 23rd February, 2015 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner also prays for releasing his salary for the months of November, December, 2014 and January, February, 2015 besides he also seeks reinstatement in service.
2. Briefly recapitulating the facts as stated in the petition are that the Deputy Inspector of Schools vide Memo dated 20th July 2010 invited applications for appointment to the post of Data Entry Operator Cum-Office Assistant in the office of the Deputy Inspector of School with a fixed monthly honorarium of Rs. 10,000/- . The petitioner applied for the said post and participated in the interview.
3. The petitioner was duly selected for appointment to the said post of Data Entry Operator Cum-Office Assistant. It is stated that the petitioner had been working sincerely and faithfully with the full satisfaction of the higher authorities. The petitioner never failed to perform his duties and always regular in attending the office.
4. It is further stated by the petitioner that there was no complaint or adverse remarks against the petitioner and he worked dedicatedly.
5. It is also stated that on 18th, 19th and 20th February, 2015 the petitioner was infected with high fever and cough/tonsil and he could not attend the office for three days and he also could not inform the respondent No. 4.
6. It is further stated that on 24th February, 2015 the petitioner had prepared the leave application along with the Doctor's prescription requesting the concerned department to allow him to take a leave and rest for two days i.e. 24th and 25th February, 2015 as he was not feeling well and suffering from sickness. However, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide Memo. dated 23rd February, 2015 by the Deputy Commissioner & Chairman, MDM, West Garo Hills, Tura.
7. The petitioner has also stated that he was terminated before he could submit his leave application and without giving an opportunity to explain the reason why he was absent for three days. The petitioner alleged the action of the respondents totally illegal and not sustainable as per law.
8. It is also stated that the respondents had not released his salary for the period of four months i.e. November, December, 2014 and January, February, 2015. It is further stated that the petitioner was continuously working with the respondents till 18th February, 2015 but on 24th February, 2015 the petitioner was issued termination letter without issuing any show cause notice.
9. The respondents have opposed the petition by filing counter affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner was irregular in his duties. It is also stated that the petitioner did not submit any application for leave to the respondents and copy of the leave application and medical certificate was received by the respondents along with a copy of the writ petition.
10. It is also stated by the respondents that show cause notices were issued earlier twice to the petitioner on 7th October, 2013 and on 9th December, 2014 as he was found irregular and indiscipline.
11. On the allegations of the petitioner for not releasing his salary for four months, it is stated by the respondents that on 26th February, 2015 two cheques were made for release of petitioner's salary for the months of November and December, 2014 for a sum of Rs. 12,000/- each. The said cheques were sent through office peon to the residence of the petitioner, however, he refused to accept the same but subsequently he received the cheques on 2nd April 2015. In so far with the salary for the month of January and February, 2015 are concerned, the same was not release due to non-receipt of MDM Scheme sanction for the year 2015.
12. It is further stated by the respondents that the attendance register is maintained in the office and the petitioner never bothered to sign in the attendance register and he was found abs
