Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 3 to 5, Sri K. Shahi for respondent no. 6 and Sri Arjun Yadav for respondent no. 2.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being finally disposed of without calling for counter affidavit.
Petitioner was engaged vide order dated 27.2.2008 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Kannauj as coordinator in mid day meal programme on contract basis for a period of one year which was subsequently extended from time to time. District Magistrate, Kannauj issued a notice dated 30.3.2011 levelling allegations of negligence and lack of proper supervision calling for explanation from the petitioner. In response thereof, petitioner submitted reply thereof on 15.4.2011. District Magistrate passed an order dated 18.4.2011 stating that there was no justification for according renewal to continuance of the petitioner as coordinator and accordingly terminated the contract.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order has been passed without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. It is further contended that there are total number of 1511 educational institutions wherein petitioner is required to supervise in his capacity as coordinator mid day meal and a perusal of the impugned notice would go to show that against 1511 institutions some minor irregularities were found only with regard to 17 institutions which constitutes a negligible percentage of total number of institutions under supervision of the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner had mentioned in his reply that there has been no default at his level and the alleged short-comings were pointed out by him and notices were issued to the responsible persons for remedial measure.
In reply, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have tried to justify the impugned ofder.
I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 18.4.2011 passed by District Magistrate does not reflect that reply submitted by the petitioner was considered at all. All that it stated in the impugned order is that reply was not found satisfactory and in the absence of any proper supervision mid day meal could not be distributed in large number of institutions, report of which has been received from inter-active vice response system and payment to the cooks and Food Corporation of India who supplied material has not been made in time. Petitioner has submitted a detail reply with respect to the allegation levelled against him in the notice in respect of 17 institutions but the District Magistrate has failed to consider the same while passing the impugned order though it was obligatory upon him to have taken into account the reply given by the petitioner.
In view of above facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 18.4.2011 passed by District Magistrate, Kannauj is not liable to be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. It shall, however, be open to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after taking into consideration the reply of the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner.
Order Date :- 26.5.2011 Dcs