Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 958 (MP)

Rakesh Kumar Kosta v. Udyami Vikas Samsthan

2004-11-30

A.K.MISHRA

body2004
JUDGMENT In this petition, petitioner has prayed for the relief of regularization and for quashment of order (P-18) dated 4.1.1994, by which, services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground of misconduct. Prayer has been made to reinstate him along with consequential benefits. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was appointed as Instructor by Manager of Udyami Vikas Sansthan, respondent No.2 as per order (P-1) dated 19.7.1989, for 59 days. Petitioner was allowed to work regularly till the date of filing of the petition. Petitioner has completed 3 years of service. He submitted an application for regularization. Regularization was not done inspite of existence of vacancy. Petitioner belongs to backward class and has imparted training to several ladies every year. He is an skilled instructor and well qualified for the job. Petitioner is not being paid adequate emolument. Hence, the writ petition has been filed. During, the pendency of the petition, order of termination of service has been passed which has been assailed by incorporating amendment in the year 1994. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed on adhoc/casual basis for a certain period only. Yet the petitioner has continued for long time with artificial break. Thus, the appointment could not have been terminated without affording opportunity of defence. Drastic steps and action of the respondents in terminating the service of the petitioner is bad in law. A return has been filed by the respondent No.2, contending that only honorary dues to be paid. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was in the employment. Respondent No. 1 has framed rules for employment and promotion. Names are required to be called for from employment exchange. Therefore, appointment is made either by the process of interview or by competitive examination. In the case of the petitioner no such mode was adopted. Petitioner was daily rated worker w.e.f. 1991. Government has not sent any fund, nor had sanctioned the scheme. State Government has not been made party in the petition. No interference is called for. Return was filed on 12.2.1993. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. It is contended that this Court had issued notice of the petition. After receiving notice, respondents fixed the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 1,000/- per month in place of Rs. 25/per day on 9.10.1992. No interference is called for. Return was filed on 12.2.1993. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. It is contended that this Court had issued notice of the petition. After receiving notice, respondents fixed the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 1,000/- per month in place of Rs. 25/per day on 9.10.1992. This Court had granted interim order directing the respondent to continue the petitioner until further orders. On application for vacating the interim order, order dated 9.10.1992 was vacated. Thereafter harassment was started. Termination has been ordered as per impugned order (P-18) dated 4.1.1994. Thus, the order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. Charge-sheet has not been issued. Enquiry has not been conducted. Hence, the order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. Shri S.K. Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order (P-18) of termination of services of the petitioner is bad in law. Same is violative of principles of natural justice. Proper enquiry has not been held. Hence, order is liable to be quashed. In my opinion, the submission raised by the petitioner counsel cannot be accepted. Petitioner was contingency paid employee. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner regarding, irregularities and illegalities committed. On 3.8.1993 physical verification was made. Cloth was found to be less, of which an amount of Rs. 893/- was deposited by the petitioner on 10.9.1993. He has admitted in his explanation dated 5.11.1993 as to obtaining the less cloth. Charge on which services of the petitioner were terminated of taking unauthorisedly property of the Centre outside, which fact was also admitted by the petitioner in writing, fact was supported by Shri Girdhari and Sanjay Singh and the thread was brought to the institution from the house of Shri Rakesh Kumar Koshta of which entry was made in the stock register at serial No. 12 on 6.12.1993. Thus, the termination of the services was ordered. Petitioner has filed reply of the show-cause notice (P-17), in which he has stated that though the admission was made by him on 6.12.1993, it was made under compulsion as threat of removal from service was extended. Thus, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had admitted in writing about his guilt. Petitioner has filed reply of the show-cause notice (P-17), in which he has stated that though the admission was made by him on 6.12.1993, it was made under compulsion as threat of removal from service was extended. Thus, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had admitted in writing about his guilt. Principles of natural justice cannot be fitted in the strait jacket formula considering the nature of appointment of the petitioner, which was on contingency basis. Explanation was called for. Petitioner has admitted the guilt in writing. Thread was recovered from his house. Entry of which was made in the stock register on 6.3.1993, I find that termination of services of the petitioner is proper. Shri S.K. Garg has submitted that after vacating of the stay order, ground has been created. I find no merit in submission. Petitioner has made the admission dated 6.12.1993 with respect to removal of articles which were found in his house. Thus, it was a serious kind of misconduct committed by the petitioner while employed on contingency basis. Thus, termination of service is held to be proper and no interference is called for in this writ petition. No other question is raised by Shri Garg. Writ petition is devoid of substance. Same is hereby dismissed.