Deelip Kumar Minj v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2410 OF 2020 Deelip Kumar Minj … PETITIONER Vs. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Ranchi 3. The Director-in-Chief, Medical Services, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Ranchi 4. The Mission Director, National Health Mission, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, RCH Campus, Namkom, Ranchi 5. The Administrative Officer, National Health Mission, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, RCH Campus, Namkom, Ranchi 6. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Deoghar 7. The Medical Officer, In-charge, Community Health Centre, Palajori, Deoghar. … … RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate : Mr. Karan Shahdeo, AC to SC-II 08/31.07.2023 Heard the parties. 2. 3. Petitioner has assailed the order of termination of contract issued vide office order as contained in Memo No. 1651 (RCH), Dated 15.06.2016 [Annexure-4] as also the order as contained in Memo no. 209, dated 28.06.2016 [Annexure-5], by which his contract has been cancelled with immediate effect. Further prayer has been made to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits. FACTUAL MATRIX According to the petitioner, pursuant to the advertisement no. 01/2011, dated 24.07/2011, published in daily newspaper, he was duly appointed to the post of Block Programme Manager vide letter as contained in Memo No. 1925/11 (D), dated 01.10.2011 on contractual basis for one year with option of renewal on the basis of appraisal report and need. Petitioner continued to work without any complaint and his contractual period was extended time to time and he continued to work RC 2 without any break till he had gone on medical leave with prior sanction by the competent authority. While on leave, petitioner came to know about the FIR being Palajori P.S. Case No. 47/2016, lodged against him by co- employee Anita Marandi and as such he surrendered before the competent Court on 02.05.2016 and remained in jail till he was granted bail by the High Court vide order dated 17.09.2016 in B.A. No. 5297 of 2016. After his release from the jail, he gave his joining on 29.09.2016 but the same was not accepted and he came to know that while remaining in judicial custody, an office order as contained in Memo No. 1651 (RCH), dated 15.06.2016 was issued whereby and whereunder his services had been terminated on the ground that he was on unauthorized leave and a criminal case was lodged against him. Thereafter, he was served with an order as contained in Memo No. 209, dated 28.06.2016 by which his contract has been cancelled with immediate effect. Neither any show- cause notice was given to the petitioner nor any departmental proceeding was ever initiated against him. Later on, petitioner was acquitted of all the charges in S.T. No. 137 of 2016 in connection with Palajori P.S. Case No. 47/2016 and thereafter he preferred representation before the respondents, but no heed was paid to the same. Being aggrieved, petitioner has knocked door of this Court. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 4. Mr. Samavesh Bhaj Deo, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
Decision
the petitioner strenuously urges that the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submits that even though appointment of the petitioner was based on the contract, it was incumbent upon the respondents to proceed legally and pass orders after initiation of a regular departmental proceeding. Learned counsel submits that merely issuance of show-cause notice will not suffice passing of termination of contract. It has been argued that when there is allegation of misconduct, the same has to be proved in a regular departmental proceeding but in the case of the petitioner, the same has not been done and as such impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that even the criminal case against the petitioner has ended with his acquittal and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent authorities to reinstate RC 3 him after quashing the order of termination of contract. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner was appointed by the Director-in-Chief, Medical Services, Jharkhand, Ranchi who was the appointing authority but he had been terminated by the Administrative Officer, ANM, Jharkhand, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. Neither any departmental proceeding was ever initiated against the petitioner nor he was served with any show-cause notice or given any opportunity of hearing. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS - UOI 5. 6. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. Karan Shahdeo, AC to learned SC-II appearing on behalf of the State submits that petitioner was subjected to termination of contract after giving him one month’s honorarium in advance and as such the terms and conditions of contract has been fulfilled as he was appointed on contractual basis. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has not been dismissed rather his contract has been cancelled as he was a contractual employee. It has further been argued that in appointment letter, it was mentioned that there can only be extension of contract after appraisal of the service condition. After appraisal of service of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner is not fit for extension and as such the contract ended. No interference is required in the instant case and writ petition is fit to be dismissed. FINDINGS OF THE COURT 7. It is an admitted fact that petitioner was appointed by way of contract. From appointment letter, nowhere it transpires that it is the condition precedent that before passing the order of termination or cancellation of contract, one month’s notice or one month’s honorarium in advance shall be given and thereafter the contract shall be terminated. From perusal of appointment letter, it appears that there is specific Clause i.e. Clause 5 that after appraisal of service of the employee, the contract can be extended. The law is well settled that even in the case of contractual employee, whenever there is allegation of misconduct, the same has to be proved in a regular departmental proceeding as it is a stigma on the career 8. RC 4 of the concerned. In the instant case, there is allegation of misconduct against the petitioner. The ground for termination of contract was said to be lodging of a criminal case against him. Merely lodging of an FIR does not amount to gross misconduct. Even in the said criminal case, petitioner has already been acquitted. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with the case of SBI v. Palak Modi reported in (2013) 3 SCC 607 has held in para-25 as under: “25. The ratio of the above noted judgments is that a probationer has no right to hold the post and his service can be terminated at any time during or at the end of the period of probation on account of general unsuitability for the post held by him. If the competent authority holds an inquiry for judging the suitability of the probationer or for his further continuance in service or for confirmation and such inquiry is the basis for taking decision to terminate his service, then the action of the competent authority cannot be castigated as punitive. However, if the allegation of misconduct constitutes the foundation of the action taken, the ultimate decision taken by the competent authority can be nullified on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice.” Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of contractual employees in the case of Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 728. 10. From perusal of record, it appears that admittedly, no regular proceeding was ever initiated against the petitioner and petitioner’s contract was terminated only on the ground of pendency of criminal case. The services of the petitioner has been put to an end, snatching his livelihood, without following the procedures of law. Any disciplinary action snatching the livelihood of a person should always be in accordance with law. Any order of major punishment passed dehors the rules, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The impugned order is cryptic, capricious, non-speaking and the same is not tenable in the eyes of law and fit to be quashed and set aside. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order has been passed in complete violation of cardinal principles of natural justice and without following the procedures of law 11. RC 5 and as such the impugned office order as contained in Memo No. 1651 (RCH), Dated 15.06.2016 [Annexure-4] as well as the order as contained in Memo no. 209, dated 28.06.2016 [Annexure-5], by which his contract has been cancelled with immediate effect, is hereby quashed and set aside. However, it is open for the respondents to proceed in accordance with law after giving ample opportunity to the petitioner. 12. With the aforementioned observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC