Varun Kumar Ranjan, aged about 33 years, son of Sri Gulechi Prasad, resident of v. Kotwali, District- Ranchi 3. Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, P.O. & P.S.- Gumla, District- Gumla 4
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 473 of 2024 Varun Kumar Ranjan, aged about 33 years, son of Sri Gulechi Prasad, resident of Village- Lembuwa, P.O.-Dhangada, P.S.-Tandwa, District- Chatra ..… Petitioner/Appellant 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, P.O- GPO, PS- Versus Kotwali, District- Ranchi 3. Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, P.O. & P.S.- Gumla, District- Gumla 4. Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-District Coordinator, Gumla, P.O & P.S.- Gumla, District- Gumla Programme ..... Respondents/ Respondents --------- CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI --------- For the Appellant For the Respondents : Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr. SC-I 04/ Dated: 19th September 2024 --------- The instant appeal filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment/order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4668 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the order of cancellation of the contractual engagement of the writ petitioner
Decision
has been declined to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition. Factual Matrix 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition is required to be enumerated as under:- The appellant-writ petitioner, who possessed M. Tech Degree, applied for the employment as Assistant Engineer in pursuant to advertisement issued in 2015 and after following selection processes, as per merit list the appellant-writ petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer and accordingly, joined on the said post in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Gumla on 22.06.2016. On accusation of demand of illegal gratification of Rs.30,000/- an F.I.R. in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 6 of 2021 was lodged against the appellant-writ petitioner on 17.08.2021 under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was taken into custody on 18.08.2021. However, he was released on bail vide order dated 02 12.2021 passed in B.A. No. 12532 of 2021. Subsequently, vide Memo No. 150(ii) dated 22.04.2022, the appellant-writ petitioner was asked to file his explanation as to why steps be not taken for cancellation of his contractual engagement. On 25.04.2022 the appellant-writ petitioner submitted his explanation to the effect that he was falsely implicated by some persons having vested interest. The respondent No.4-Deputy Development Commissioner-cum- District Programme Coordinator, Gumla vide Memo No. 309(ii) dated 12.08.2022 has asked the appellant-writ petitioner to submit his explanation as to why steps be not taken for cancellation of his contract. The appellant-writ petitioner submitted his explanation stating therein that he was falsely implicated in a criminal case without any sort of involvement therein and also cited examples of other similarly situated persons who were permitted to join their posts during pendency of criminal case. Second show cause notice being memo No. 434(ii) dated 10.11.2022 issued to the appellant-writ petitioner and accordingly reply has been submitted thereby denying the allegations. Thereafter, the impugned order Memo No.98 dated 08.02.2023 was issued by which the appointment of the appellant-writ petitioner has been cancelled and while cancelling the appointment reliance has been placed 2 upon letter No.1482 dated 06.07.2016. Aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned, the appellant-writ petitioner preferred an appeal being Service Appeal No. 05 of 2023 before Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi but the said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 18.07.2023. Thereafter, the appellant-writ petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4668 of 2023, but the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 03.07.2024 by the learned writ Court, against which the present intra court appeal has been filed. 3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the appellant-writ petitioner had been appointed as Assistant Engineer on contractual basis and while discharging the duty, he was found to be involved in taking illegal gratification of Rs.30,000/- which has been surfaced by constituting a ‘Trap Team’ and thereafter an FIR was instituted against the appellant-writ petitioner on 17.08.2021 under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he was taken into custody on 18.08.2021. 4. The appellant-writ petitioner was released from judicial custody on 08.12.2021 and has given his joining but his joining has not been accepted, rather a show-cause notice was given asking the appellant-writ petitioner as to why the contractual appointment be not cancelled by rescinding the contract entered in between the appellant-writ petitioner and the competent authority. 5. The appellant-writ petitioner responded but reply of the appellant- writ petitioner has not been found satisfactory and the contract of appointment was rescinded vide order dated 08.02.2023. Thereafter, the appeal was preferred against the order of cancellation of appointment but 3 the appeal was also dismissed on 18.07.2023. 6. The writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4668 of 2023 has been filed by the appellant-writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge while considering the fact in entirety and also taking into consideration the nature of appointment which was contractual as also the valid reason of cancellation of the said contract since the appellant-writ petitioner has been found to be involved in illegal gratification to the tune of Rs.30,000/- for which he has also been taken into custody on institution of the regular criminal case, has dismissed the writ petition on the aforesaid grounds which is the subject matter of present appeal. Submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant 7. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner, has taken the ground that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the criminal case in which the appellant-writ petitioner has been implicated is the sole basis of taking such decision of cancellation of the engagement/appointment and, as such, the authority ought to have waited for the outcome of the criminal case, but the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid fact and in addition thereto, the response which was submitted by the appellant-writ petitioner has also not been taken into consideration in the right perspective. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from an error and as such, the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondents 8. While on the other hand, Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State of Jharkhand by defending the impugned order, has submitted that the appellant-writ petitioner was 4 appointed on contract basis depending upon certain terms and conditions as per the offer of appointment. Since he has been found to be involved in taking the gratification to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- in which he has also been implicated and a criminal case has been instituted in which he was taken into custody, therefore, the authority while acting on the basis of the terms and conditions of contract has taken decision to cancel his appointment and accordingly, after following the principle of natural justice, the contractual engagement has been cancelled. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the aforesaid facts has not interfered with the impugned decision taken by the authority, hence, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. Analysis 9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order as also the pleading as available in the paper-book. The fact in this case is that the appellant-writ petitioner was appointed on contractual basis and offer of appointment contains certain terms and conditions and one of the conditions which is that the appointment of the appellant-writ petitioner is purely on contract and continuity will depend upon the performance of the service which will be rendered by the appellant-writ petitioner. It is also undisputed that the appellant-writ petitioner has been implicated in a criminal case, since as per the allegation he has been involved in taking Rs.30,000/- by gratification while discharging his duty and in consequence thereof, an FIR under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been instituted against him in which he has also 5 been taken into custody. 10. The respondents authority in the aforesaid backdrop has taken decision to rescind the contract and for that a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant-writ petitioner for explaining the reason why the contract entered in between the concerned respondents and appellant-writ petitioner be not cancelled/rescinded on the ground of such a serious allegation while discharging the official duty. The respondents have cancelled/rescinded the contract against which the appeal was preferred but the appellate authority also declined to interfere with the said decision. 11. The matter came to this Court which has been taken into consideration by this Court while exercising the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment as also imputation levelled against the appellant-writ petitioner that since the nature of appointment is purely on contractual depending upon the satisfactory performance of service, hence the decision was taken by the authority to cancel the said contract. 12. From the fact of the case it is evident that the principle of natural justice has been followed since the show-cause notice has been given and subsequent thereto, another notice has also been given to the appellant-writ petitioner. The appellant-writ petitioner has responded although by denying the allegation but the authority has not found the reply satisfactory. The learned Single Judge, by considering the terms and conditions of the contract as also the allegation, has refused to interfere with the impugned order of cancellation and declined to interfere the order passed by the appellate authority. 6 13. The question which has been raised before this Court is that the outcome of the criminal case ought to has been waited, but this Court is not impressed with such ground, reason being that nature of appointment of the appellant-writ petitioner is purely contractual which is based upon the contract is as per the terms and conditions of the said contract, and as such, the said contract, being a bilateral contract, the same is to be obeyed by the parties. 14. The offer of appointment contains a condition wherein it is given the further continuation in service will depend upon the satisfactory performance in service and the services can be dispensed at any time by the concerned authority, if the service is not found to be satisfactory. 15. Here in the instant case, it is not be in dispute that the petitioner was implicated in the criminal case since, an FIR is there and the appellant-writ petitioner has been taken into custody. Subsequently released on bail. Therefore, the proposition which has been laid down that the departmental proceeding will depend on the outcome of the criminal case will not be applicable in the present case, since, taking into consideration the nature of the engagement/appointment of the appellant-writ petitioner that a regular departmental proceeding is required to be initiated which has not been initiated and since it is not a case to initiate departmental proceeding, being the contractual appointment, as there is no question of applicability of the principle to wait for the outcome of the simultaneously criminal case. The law is well settled from the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the situation of simultaneous continuation of departmental 7 proceeding vis-a-vis criminal proceeding, has arrived at following conclusions:- “22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the Departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” 16. It is evident that from the judgments referred herein above that there is no bar in simultaneous continuation of departmental proceeding with criminal proceeding if both are same set of facts and evidence, then the delinquent will be at liberty to make application to stay of the departmental proceeding and the said application to be dealt on the basis of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra). 17. In the present case, the said principle is not applicable to the appellant-writ petitioner, as he has been inducted in the service on the contractual basis and, as such, above legal proposition is not applicable to the facts of the instant case in hand, as the appointment of the appellant- writ petitioner was purely contractual in nature and based upon the terms and conditions, of the said contract. 8 18. This Court in entirety of facts and circumstances as per the discussion made herein above and adverting to the order passed by the learned Single Judge is of the view that the learned Single Judge since has taken the view on the basis of the terms and conditions of the contract and in such circumstances, the contract has been cancelled, the same need not be interfered with. 19. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. 20. Pending I.A., if any also stands disposed of. Pramanik/ A.F.R (Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 9