Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12326 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sanjay Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhawesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vivek Saran
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This petition is directed against an order dated 3.9.2020, whereby petitioner's contractual engagement has been discontinued on specific charges of misconduct.
The order impugned is assailed on the ground that no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. Submission is that even if petitioner's engagement is contractual, yet, when his engagement has been discontinued on the specific charge of misconduct a bare minimum opportunity ought to have been given so that petitioner could have clarified the facts in that regard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon an order of this Court in Writ Petition No.21257 of 2019, dated 9.1.2020, which is reproduced hereinafter:-
"Petitioner was engaged as a Conductor on contractual basis in the respondent corporation. His services have been disengaged/terminated by the order impugned, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, on the charge that he unauthorisedly used Print Selected Route Slip from E.T.M. Machine and caused financial loss to the Corporation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that neither any opportunity of hearing has been given to petitioner nor his claim has been examined in the arbitration proceedings. Submission is that the termination of services in the facts and circumstances of the case, is violative of principles of natural justice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to a communication dated 24.12.2018, as per which arbitration also would not be possible in a case where contractual employees is terminated on specific charges of misconduct.
Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation although opposes the petition, but it is not disputed that neither any inquiry has been conducted nor even an opportunity of hearing has been given to petitioner.
In such circumstances, this petition succeeds and is allowed. Order impugned dated 18.9.2018, passed by respondent no. 4, is accordingly quashed. Matter stands remitted to the authority concerned for proceeding afresh, in accordance with law. It goes without saying that the petitioner would be reinstated in service and would be entitled to all other benefits, in term of his contractual engagement, unless a fresh order is passed by the competent authority."
A counter affidavit has been filed in the matter and Sri Vivek Saran, learned counsel for the respondents has strongly opposed the petition.
Although it is stated that a reply has been given by the petitioner but there is no averment that any notice was issued and it is not clear as to in what circumstance alleged reply is shown to have been given by the petitioner, which is otherwise not admitted.
For the reasons recorded in the order dated 9.1.2020 passed in the above writ petition, this petition is also disposed of on the same terms. Order dated 3.9.2020 stands quashed.
Order Date :- 7.1.2021 Ashok Kr.