Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 53 (MP)

Satyanarayan Mahor v. State of M. P.

2015-01-13

ROHIT ARYA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Rohit Arya, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge is made to the order dated 12/11/2009 issued by the Collector-respondent no.3 terminating the contract employment of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was offered contract employment as Sub Engineer vide order dated 24/2/2007 on conditions inter alia that the appointment is purely temporary, contract employment is for one year and in the event performance and working methodology if not found satisfactory, the employment shall be terminated. It appears that there was gross irregularities and substandard construction work of the building of Government Primary School, Heerapura, Block Vijaypur. A complaint was made in that behalf. In the enquiry, one Manoj Kumar Sharma, Construction Secretary, was found to be negligent and lacking in his official duty and, therefore, was suspended. The petitioner, Sub Engineer, was deputed for revaluation of the cost of construction and the quality of construction. As per his report, the value of the building was Rs.1,19,685/- and the construction was reported to be of superior quality and fit for use for 30 years. On enquiry being conducted by the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Division Sheopur, it was found that construction of the school building is of substandard. There is bend in the roof resting on one pillar with the danger of it being collapsed. There is constant seepage of water in the rooms and it was found that building is not fit for use. As such, the report given by the petitioner was found to be totally de hors the condition of the building at site. Accordingly, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him for explanation on the issue as to how he arrived at the conclusion that the building was strong and usable for 30 years. On consideration of the reply, it was found that petitioner had made factually incorrect report, which reflected his unsuitability for the work he was assigned. Accordingly, the contract employment was terminated as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid impugned order on the premise that the same is stigmatic in nature and, therefore, there ought to have been regular departmental enquiry for the purpose of imposing major penalty of termination of service. 4. Accordingly, the contract employment was terminated as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid impugned order on the premise that the same is stigmatic in nature and, therefore, there ought to have been regular departmental enquiry for the purpose of imposing major penalty of termination of service. 4. Per contra counsel for respondents/State has supported the order impugned on the ground that the petitioner's appointment was totally contractual in nature initially for one year subject to renewals. It was in fact and in effect a temporary employment. Petitioner has no lien to the post and he has no vested right to continue over the post and the same was liable to be terminated, as the performance and working methodology of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory, hence, considering the report submitted by the petitioner de hors the ground reality, it was found that petitioner was not suitable for the work assigned to him and, therefore, his services were terminated. No interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that there is no doubt that the nature of appointment of the petitioner was contractual for one year subject to extensions. Petitioner's appointment was liable to be terminated if the performance is found to be unsatisfactory or the working methodology was not found to be of qualitative nature. With the understanding and knowledge of the aforesaid terms and conditions, the petitioner had accepted the offer of appointment and accordingly joined the services. Petitioner was not appointed on regular basis against substantive post to which he may claim to have a lien. That apart, petitioner's performance since has been found to be unsatisfactory in nature in fact there was no requirement of issuance of any show-cause notice and the same should have been terminated in terms of the appointment letter, however, respondents/State Government, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, offered him opportunity to show-cause, as the report submitted by him was found to be totally contrary to the ground reality at site. On consideration of the reply submitted to the show-cause notice, the authority has made his mind not to continue him with the employment, as petitioner's performance was found to be unsatisfactory in nature and working methodology was qualitatively substandard and, therefore, the service has been terminated in public interest. Even on facts, if it is seen, on the one hand there is bending of the roof sought to be supported by single pillar, besides, there is constant leakage in the rooms of the building as found by the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Sheopur Division, therefore, such building could not have been certified as qualitatively superior building fit for using 30 years, as done by the petitioner. Hence, on the basis of it, the knowledge and efficiency of the petitioner was well explicit and, therefore, termination of petitioner on the ground of unsatisfactory working methodology: misleading and factually incorrect report on qualitatively substandard construction work is justified. Hence, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed.