Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 681 of 2017 Appellant :- Lalita Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Dhirendra Kumar Singh Rat Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri D.K.S. Rathor, learned counsel for the appellant at length.
The contention raised by Sri Rathor is that it is in a very arbitrary fashion the renewal of the appellant as a Consultant of Swachh Bharat Mission has been denied without assessing the correct status of the work performed by the appellant, and consequently the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate dated 9th June, 2017 deserves to be quashed, but the learned Single Judge without appreciating the fact in correct perspective has declined to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel submits that as a matter of fact the respondents after the complaint had been made malafidely, tried to manipulate the discontinuance of the appellant and without there being any pre-warning to the appellant, proceeded to consider the material on record to treat the period of functioning of the appellant as non productive as if it was without any contribution from the appellant. He contends that the conclusion drawn by the District Magistrate was otherwise also malafide keeping in view the entire protest which had been made by the appellant against the official who deliberately submitted an adverse report bereft of any material. The appellant therefore has been malafidely ousted inspite of the fact that the scheme requires an uninterrupted continuance till the scheme is continuing. It is urged that in the letter of appointment itself there is a provision for renewal keeping in view the work and conduct of such Consultant and in the absence of any adverse report against the appellant on record, the discontinuance on the basis of mere imagination and false allegations cannot be sustained.
Sri Rathor therefore contended that the impugned order of the District Magistrate deserves to be quashed and the writ petition also deserves to be allowed as the learned Single Judge has not considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contends that the allegations made in the writ petition were unfounded inasmuch as the appellant had been given fore warnings and inspite of the fact that she was called upon to attend the meeting and produce the evidence with regard to the duties discharged by her for fulfilling the aim and objects of the Mission, she was unable to do so, as a result whereof the conclusion drawn by the District Magistrate cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity. It is therefore urged that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error and had looked into every material aspect before arriving at the conclusion that the appellant did not deserve any indulgence by this Court.
Having considered the aforesaid submissions raised, what we find from the perusal of the order of the District Magistrate dated 9th June, 2017 is that the appellant did not produce any material with regard to the actual work performed by her including any instance of any village having been completely brought under the scheme and declared as ODF. Not only this, the other activities also the duties whereof were to be performed by the Consultant did not yield any such information so as to indicate that she was actually performing her duties in order to fulfil the aims and object of the scheme.
We have gone through the contents of the writ petition, copy whereof has been filed on record and in paragraph 15 of the writ petition, the appellant herself has admitted that the petitioner worked in the same scheme till the end of December, 2016. However, while stating the facts the findings of the District Magistrate about actual discharge of duties has not been successfully challenged nor any such material has been brought on record of the writ petition or even in the stay application filed along with this appeal so as to remotely demonstrate as to what work was actually performed by her so as to reflect that she had performed her duties and that the findings recorded by the District Magistrate were perverse on this account. There is no material to dispel such doubts. In the absence of such material, we have no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, the conclusion whereof appears to have been arrived after a proper appreciation of the controversy, moreso, in the wake of the fact that the appellant has not been able to discharge the burden of proving the actual nature of duties performed by her.
Learned counsel submits that even in such matters keeping in view the nature of continuance of the scheme, the appellant's services could not have been dispense with.
We are not impressed by this argument inasmuch as the continuance or renewal of the appellant or any such Consultant is clearly dependant upon the duties discharged to the satisfaction of the authorities.
In such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. The appeal is rejected.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018 Tamang/Bhanu