Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 99 (MP)

Girraj Gupta v. State of M. P.

2007-01-23

S.K.GANGELE

body2007
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order of termination dated 12.5.2005. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Rural Medical Officer on contract basis vide order dated 28.5.1999 for a period of two years. After completion of period of two years in May 2001 the services of the petitioner continued. He filed a petition before this Court, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 875/2004, with regard to payment of honorarium of Rs. 15,000/- per month as per the provisions of the M.P. Public Health and Family Welfare Medical Cadre Contract Service (Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2002, hereinafter called as the 'Rules of 2002' . This Court disposed of that petition vide order dated 5.5.2004 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, as per the petitioner the honorarium to the petitioner from May 2004 of Rs. 8,000/per month or enhanced honorarium as per the provisions of Rules of 2002 of Rs. 15,000/- has not been paid for a period of one year and without giving any notice the services of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that he was absent from 1.4.2005 up to the date of passing of the order i.e. 12.5.2005 whereby the services of the petitioner has been deemed to be terminated. 3. The respondents in the return have stated that the petitioner was habitual absentee. There were a number of complaints against the petitioner with regard to his absence from the work place including a complaint from local M.L.A and Chief Medical and Health Officer constituted a committee and on the basis of the report of the committee the services of the petitioner were terminated. Copy of the report has been filed as Annexure R-4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of termination of the services of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal and against the rule of natural justice. Contrary to this, the learned counsel for respondents has submitted that the order of termination of the services of the petitioner is valid and is in accordance with the Rules of 2002 because the petitioner was absent from duties. 5. From the facts stated above it is clear that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis as Rural Medical Officer for a period of two years vide order dated 28.5.1999. 5. From the facts stated above it is clear that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis as Rural Medical Officer for a period of two years vide order dated 28.5.1999. Thereafter, also he was continued in service and the petitioner alongwith other persons filed a petition before this Court with regard to payment of honorarium of Rs. 15,000/- per month as per Rules of 2002. The petition was registered as Writ Petition No. 875/2004 and disposed of vide order dated 5.5.2004 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and as per the petitioner he had not been paid any honorarium from May 2004 onwards. This Court has decided the case of the petitioner with regard to payment of honorarium from May 2004 to 1.4.2005 in Writ Petition No. 66612005 and directed the respondents to pay honorarium to the petitioner. It is clear from the facts on record that respondents did not pay the honorarium to the petitioner from May 2004. In such circumstances, it may be possible that the petitioner may have not joined the duties as alleged by the respondents from 1.4.2005 to 12.4.2005. Apart from this as per the respondents an inquiry has been conducted with regard to the absence of the petitioner. But, it is clear from the report of the inquiry, Annexure R-4 that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing or show cause notice after the inquiry or during the inquiry. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Rule 10 (8) of the Rules of 2002 if a medical officer remains absent for a period of more than one month then his services may be deemed to be terminated cannot be accepted because in the present case admittedly the petitioner was not paid honorarium for a period of near about one year and apart from this the fact that the petitioner remained absent for one month is not un-controverted fact and for the aforesaid purpose, in my opinion, it was necessary to the respondents to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Boon and another, [( 1998) 6 SCC 538]. The order of termination of services, in my opinion, cannot be said to be just and proper in view of the judgment in Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others, reported in [ (2004) 4 SCC 560 ], and judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Geeta Gulati v. Chairman, Maharshi Shiksha Sansthan and others, reported in [ 2005 (3) MPLJ 52 ]. 6. Consequently, the petition of the petitioner is allowed. The impugned order of termination, Annexure P-1 dated 12.5.2005, is hereby quashed. The petitioner be taken back in service. However, it is made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled for any salary or honorarium for the period for which he has not worked. It is further made clear that respondents are free to take necessary steps as per the provisions of Rules of 2002. No order as to cost.