Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 66 (UTT)

Hem Chandra Sati v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-02-12

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition for quashing of the order of termination dated 24.04.2018, as passed by respondent no.4 and also with a consequential prayer of mandamus, commanding the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all back-wages and continuity thereto in the services. 2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as a conductor on a contractual basis on 29.01.2011. Initially, he was rendering his services satisfactory. Thereafter, the respondent corporation had found various anomalies in the service which has been rendered by the petitioner by providing wrongful facts regarding mileage of the bus which it had plied, which has resulted into loss fiscal to the transport corporation. Consequently, by virtue of the order dated 24.04.2018, the contractual appointment of the petitioner was terminated. 3. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the termination order dated 24.04.2018 is that the said termination order is bad from the view-point that prior to the passing of the order, he was not provided an opportunity of hearing thus order happens to be in violation of principles of natural justice. Secondly, the allegations which has resulted into passing of the impugned order cannot be isolatedly be shouldered upon the petitioner, because wrong mentioning of the distance covered by the vehicle under various trips of the bus, resulting to passing of the termination order dated 24.04.2018, would also be attributed to the driver of the vehicle who too provides the statistics in that regard to the petitioner which was included by him in the datas as supplied by him. 4. He had further submitted though without any details with pleadings, that the identically placed contractual employees who too are said to have committed certain errors/mistakes while rendering their service to the respondent on the contractual basis, they have been treated distinctively and rather they have been reinstated into the service by the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, and petitioner has been meted out with different treatment, this action is arbitrary. 5. 5. The arguments as extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable by this Court for the reason being that admittedly the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis, as his services was supplied by an agency called as the Expert Industrial Security Service of India, when he was giving the contractual appointment as a conductor on 29.01.2011 his appointment was through out sourcing. As a matter of fact, since it was his services which was supplied by the said agency and was not a recruit of the corporation, their did not existed any master and servant relationship between the petitioner and the Uttarakhand State Transport Corporation and hence in such an virtuality, where there is no relationship of master and servant and the petitioner had been appointed on a contractual basis by out sourcing, court is of the view that prior to passing of order termination of the service contract. As a matter of fact, no opportunity of hearing as such was required to be given to the petitioner. Also because his services would not be governed by the services rules as applicable to the employees of the corporation, which itself contains the procedure for taking disciplinary action against such employees. 6. The second argument, as extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that petitioner cannot be solely attributed with the responsibility of the anomalies which has occurred and mentioned in the termination order in rendering the services as a conductor, this argument cannot be accepted for the reason being that the Assistant General Manager while passing the order had referred to various such series of incidents which has chanced, wherein the petitioner is said to be instrumental in giving the wrong particulars and statistics of distances, pertaining to the distance which the vehicle has covered. As a consequence, the petitioner apart from causing loss to the department had mis-conducted himself while rendering his contractual services as conductor and thus, by virtue of the impugned order, where specific allegations have been levelled against him with regards to the anomalies and the mistakes which have been committed by him, he cannot take any benefit that the driver has been left out by the respondent and no action has been taken against him. This defence is not available to the petitioner because apparently, after going through the findings which have been recorded in the impugned order dated 24.04.2018, it could apparently be made out that there had been series of irregularities committed cumulatively by the petitioner, in making deceitful communication to the corporation through the documents and particulars pertaining to the distance covered by the vehicle, in which he was deployed to work as a contractual conductor, which has resulted to the financial loss to the corporation. 7. The contention of the petitioner lastly was to the effect that identically placed contractual conductors who too have been found to have been committing certain anomalies while discharging their duties has been meted out with a different treatment by the respondent. 8. This argument, apart from the fact is not sustainable, in the light of the pleadings which has been raised in the petition because there is no such specific averments or examples quoted by the petitioner to support his argument raised in defense nor any material has been placed on record, wherein the other contractual conductors have been said to have been given a different treatment. Even for the sake of argument, if it is presumed that the respondent had been giving a different treatment with regards to the services rendered by the other contractual employees and they have been reinstated or they have been permitted to work despite of certain anomalies that would obviously be depended upon the specific particular circumstances of each case gravity of allegations, and reposement of confidence with the employees and no parity can be claimed based on the same as each case has to dealt in the circumstances of that particular case. 9. That in view of the matter, looking to the reasons which has been assigned in the impugned order dated 24.04.2018, whereby the petitioner’s contractual appointment has been terminated, as a matter of fact, no remedy would lie for the petitioner to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the service conditions of the petitioner would specifically be governed by the conditions of the contract which has been executed between the respondent and the agency, who has supplied the services of the petitioner with the Corporation. Consequently, in the absence of relationship of master and servant, this Court is of the view that the writ petition lacks merit as no apparent error could be pointed out from the perusal of the impugned order dated 24.04.2018, where the allegations had been specifically settled against petitioner. 10. Consequently the writ petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed. However there would be no order as to cost.