Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10834 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rajeev Kuamr Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Bahadur Singh,Sanjeev Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raghvendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the District Basic Education officer, Mainpuri, refusing to extend contractual engagement of petitioner as a Coordinator in Mid Day Meal Scheme.
It appears that the petitioner's engagement was discontinued, with which he felt aggrieved and had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 5997 of 2018, which was allowed vide following order passed on 27.2.2018:-
"Heard Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3 and Shri R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
The abovenoted writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order terminating his services on the post of District Co-ordinator, Mid-day-Meal Scheme, Mainpuri by the respondent No.4, District Basic Education Officer/Secretary, Mainpuri.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the show cause notice prior to the termination of the service of the petitioner was given by the respondent No.4 only regarding the non-placement of renewal of service record of Ashutosh Pandey, Computer Operator, within time before him. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 20.1.2018 and thereafter, the impugned punishment order terminating the services of the petitioner has been passed by the respondent No.4, which is based on extraneous considerations, i.e., those allegations, which were not mentioned in the show cause notice. It is settled law that no one can be punished for the charges regarding which no show cause notice has been given prior to passing of such punishment order.
The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has not expressed any desire to file counter affidavit and, therefore, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage.
In view of the fact that the impugned termination order has been passed in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and on the basis of the charges which were not part of the show cause notice, the same is hereby quashed.
The writ petition is allowed. It shall be open for the respondents to consider and pass fresh order in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith any advertisement of recruitment on the post being held by the petitioner is also hereby quashed".
It appears that after passing of such order, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 3.4.2018 by the District Basic Education Officer, to which a reply has also been submitted by the petitioner on 12.4.2018. After receiving such reply, the District Basic Education Officer has examined its contents and has proceeded to reject the petitioner’s representation and thereby denied extension of contractual engagement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the order impugned is absolutely arbitrary inasmuch as none of the grounds which are made the basis for refusing his extension, could be sustained in law.
Petition is opposed by Sri R.B. Singh, appearing for respondent no. 4.
Admittedly, the petitioner is a contractual employee and at the time when the authorities have to take a decision as to whether the contractual services offered are satisfactory or not, the authorities of the State are not expected to hold an inquiry as is usually done in respect of an employee holding substantive appointment in the department. However, principles of fair play and natural justice would have to be read into in the case of contractual employee also, if his engagement is not being extended on the ground of his unsatisfactory work or charges.
In the facts of the present case, the first charge against the petitioner was that in respect of amount payable to fruit vendors, who were supplying fruits in Mid Day Meal Scheme for the year 2016-2017, the amount was duly sanctioned for being paid to the fruit vendors. A demand draft was prepared but the same was not paid as the petitioner had doubts as to whether it is to be paid or not in view of a news paper report. The demand draft was extended twice but even thereafter it was not paid and the amount was returned. It appears that this amount was again sanctioned in the next year by which time the contractual term of the petitioner had expired. A show cause notice was issued specifically mentioning that the petitioner had acted in an irresponsible manner in not releasing the draft already prepared.
Reply submitted by the petitioner to the District Magistrate is on record. Petitioner states that he had read in the news paper that the distribution of fruits in the Mid Day Meal Scheme was being stopped, and therefore, on account of confusion prevailing, he has not released the said amount. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 54,84,480/- was returned to the State. In the order passed by the authority under challenge, it is recorded that the policy of State was not discontinued and that in the event there was any confusion, the petitioner could have sought clarification from the higher authorities but he could not withhold the bank draft already prepared at his own level. It is then stated that the amount was again received in the year 2013 and has then paid to the same set of persons. Adverse inference with regard to working of the petitioner has been drawn on such count.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the amount meant to be paid to the fruit vendors was withdrawn from all districts and it is stated that the amount was withdrawn on 3.5.2017. The dues which were payable, were for the financial year 2016-2017. This is clearly admitted in para-1 of the petitioner's reply. Although subsequent sum became payable in the financial year 2017-2018, also but there is no justification as to how the amount, which were payable by 31.3.2017 was not released by the petitioner, although a bank draft had been prepared for such purpose. In case petitioner had any doubts on that count, he could have made appropriate clarification from his higher authorities. Not releasing the bank draft, even with its term extended twice, without any specific direction to stop the payment by the competent authority, would constitute sufficient basis for the authorities not to renew the extension of petitioner. The order, otherwise, does not cast any stigma upon the petitioner inasmuch as it is always open for the authorities not to renew the extension, if they are not satisfied with the working petitioner.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the action of the respondents can not be said to be arbitrary if his engagement is not renewed.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.4.2018 n.u.