High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner before the order dated 31.01.2024,whereby, his contract appointment has been cancelled on the ground that he has been found involved in corrupt practice. is aggrieved by this Court

3. Assailing the order impugned and seeking for its quashment, learned Senior Advocate has placed twofold submissions before this Court: (i) The order impugned has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice as it being stigmatic in nature, petitioner at least deserved a show cause notice to enable him to offer his explanation; and (ii) No fact finding enquiry whatsoever, was held and petitioner was simply axed on the alleged charge of taking bribe of Rs. 10,000/- for giving approval to the digging of a pond by Anti Corruption department, Varanasi for which it is claimed that the team had led allegedly a trap on 18.12.2023.

4. In support of his first submission, learned Senior Advocate submitted that even if the Rules are silent regarding a show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to be afforded to an employee, may be working on contract basis, before rescinding a contract for the charges, the principles of natural justice would get automatically attracted. It is argued that the legal principle as evolved in a series of judgments of Supreme Court it has already been held that even if the Rules are silent, the rules of natural justice would step in to arrest any arbitrary exercise of power by the competent authority in the matter of employment. He further submits that if the authority was of the view or the alleged committee in its meeting convened on 29.01.2024 formed a view, petitioner ought have been afforded an opportunity to explain 2 WRIA No. 9766 of 2024 himself. The manner and method in which the disciplinary proceedings have been drawn against the petitioner to rescind his contract of appointment for corruption charges, speaks volume of whimsical action taken under the order impugned.

5. In support of his second submission, learned Senior Advocate submitted that merely laying a trap and arresting a person does not ipso facto result in holding a person guilty of corruption charges. He further submitted that the High Court while granting bail to the petitioner in connection with Case Crime No. 15 of 2020, under Sections 7, 13(1)b read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act clearly observed that there was no mention in the FIR of the alleged bribe, inasmuch as, the Block Development Officer being the sanctioning authority, there was no question of being any approval or sanction to be sought from the petitioner.

6. Learned Standing Counsel representing the State respondents has sought to defend the order for the reasons assigned therein, inasmuch as, he vehemently argued that the Government Order dated 27.09.2010 very clearly stipulated that the officer of the cadre of petitioner if found guilty of misconduct, his services were liable to be terminated forthwith. He further argued that a duly constituted committee held meeting as was convened on 29.01.2024 in view of the letter issued by the Secretary, Government of U.P. dated 27.09.2010 calling for a report wherein the matter was deliberated and therefore, it cannot be said that the order is whimsical in nature and that there was no due consideration accorded to the facts of the case leading to the lodging of the FIR.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that petitioner throughout denied in his writ petition and while he submitted bail application before the High Court as well that he ever demanded any money. He was not the approving authority of the project for which the trap was allegedly laid.

8. It has been subsequently pleaded vide paras 16, 17, 20 & 21 of the writ petition that neither petitioner was informed of any such meeting of the Committee headed by District Magistrate dated 29.01.2024, nor any copy thereof was supplied to the petitioner, nor petitioner was given any opportunity of hearing or show cause. Paras 16, 17, 20 & 21 of the writ petition are reproduced hereunder: "16. That having been so relieved on bail the petitioner reported for resuming his duty as Additional Program Officer. At such stage the petitioner has been informed that the services of the petitioner have been dispensed by an order dated 31.01.2024. This order has already been referred to above and annexed as Annexure 1 to this writ petition. 3 WRIA No. 9766 of 2024

17. That the aforesaid order refers to a decision taken by a Committee headed by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur in the date of 29.01.2024. NO copy of the proceedings of the said committee have been made available to the petitioner. This is despite an application having been filed by the petitioner under RTI 2005. A true copy of application filed under RTI alongwith receipt of registered post is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure 8 to this writ petition.

20. That the order impugned has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing. The order impugned has not been preceded by any notice to show cause issued to the petitioner.

21. That the petitioner was afforded no hearing either at the level of District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner - Shram Rojgar or the committee headed by the District Magistrate referred to in the order impugned."

9. Replying the above paragraphs vide para 14 of the counter affidavit sworn by Dinesh Pratap Singh,Block Development Officer, Block Maharajganj, District Jaunpur, it has only been stated that the contents of paragraph no. 16 & 17 have been suitably replied in the preceding paragraphs of the counter affidavit. However, in all the remaining preceding paragraphs 13 in number, I do not find there to be any reference of any notice or supply of the copy of any decision of the Committee to the petitioner or that petitioner was ever issued with a show cause notice prior to committee submitted its report. All that has been stated in the preceding paragraphs is that petitioner was since caught red handed taking bribe by the Anti Corruption Team, Prevention of Corruption Organization, Varanasi on 18.12.2023, there remained no doubt about his involvement in corrupt practice.

10. In so far as paragraph nos. 20 & 21 are concerned, reply has been given vide para 15 of the counter affidavit in which it has been stated that U.P. Government Service Rules were not attracted as petitioner being a contract worker under MANREGA was dismissed taking recourse to Government Order dated 27.09.2010. Thus, there is no denial of lack opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

11. In my considered view, if a contract appointment comes to an end by virtue of it being a tenure appointment, it is always at the discretion of respondent to continue such employee or not, and there can be no grievance of contract appointee against non renewal of the contract. But where the contract is rescinded by a Government authority while it is still subsisting and that too on the charges that employee was found involved in corrupt practice and hence was guilty of misconduct as has been stated in the order impugned, at least a notice or opportunity is required to be given to such 4 WRIA No. 9766 of 2024 contract employee prior to passing of the order impugned.

12. I further notice that the meeting that was convened on 29.01.2024 headed by the District Magistrate which resolved to dispense with the contract employment of the petitioner merely referred to the FIR and the incident of trap led by Anti Corruption Team on 18.12.2023 and there is no independent application of mind except reference to these facts.

13. In my considered view, mere reference to fact of corrupt practice does not lead to a conclusion, more especially when under the Prevention of Corruption Act a charged officer is yet to be convicted. Hence proper course for the authority was to give a notice to the employee to appear before the Committee and explain his conduct. Interestingly the Committee in its report does not disclose as to whether petitioner was the approving authority for the project of pond as has been alleged in the order impugned. The only reference made to para 17 of the Government Order. In order to appreciate para 17 of the Government Order, I reproduce the same herein below: "(17) अितिर्व कायर््वम अिधकारी ्षारा अपने कतर््िों एवं दाियत्वों के िनष्पादन में िशिथलता तथा िकसी भी ्ऺकार का कदाचार पाये जाने पर उनकी सेवाएं तत्काल ्ऺभाव से समाप्त कर दी जायेंगी।"

14. From a bare reading of the aforesaid paragraph of the Government Order, it goes absolutely explicit that an appointment can be terminated in the event an employee is found guilty of misconduct. Question of fraud/ corruption and misconduct are the question of facts that need adjudication at least in a summary manner in the event it is only an issue of contract appointment and service rules are not applicable that may lay down detailed procedure. The Committee that was constituted by the District Magistrate in response to the letter issued by the Secretary, Government of U.P. was required to deliberate the issue of misconduct after getting a written reply from the petitioner. In the absence of this procedure being followed and in the absence of any independent finding being returned except the matter of FIR on account of alleged trap led by the Anti Corruption Unit, Varanasi on 18.12.2023, all this would not amount to deliberation as to charge of corruption, leading to a definite finding of fact, which is mandatory to be arrived. The charges are yet to be proved and therefore, the parameters laid under the Government Order do not stand complied with.

15. In view of the above, I do not find any justification for the decision of the Committee dated 29.01.2024 to terminate the contract employment of the petitioner and also the consequential order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, (Labour & Employment), Jaunpur. 5 WRIA No. 9766 of 2024

16. I take judicial notice of the decision of the Committee dated 29.01.2024 brought on record by means of counter affidavit.

17. Thus, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 31.01.2024 as well as the decision of the committee dated 29.01.2024 are hereby quashed.

18. Petitioner shall be reinstated with current pay only. He shall be offering his explanation taking the decision of the Committee dated 29.01.2024 as a notice to him, within a period of six weeks from today. After the reply is submitted, the Committee shall re-schedule a meeting to consider the reply of the petitioner and thereafter, shall be passing order afresh. The arrears of salary and further continuance of the petitioner shall depend upon the final decision to be taken by the authority. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 IrfanUddin IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner before the order dated 31.01.2024,whereby, his contract appointment has been cancelled on the ground that he has been found involved in corrupt practice. is aggrieved by this Court

3. Assailing the order impugned and seeking for its quashment, learned Senior Advocate has placed twofold submissions before this Court: (i) The order impugned has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice as it being stigmatic in nature, petitioner at least deserved a show cause notice to enable him to offer his explanation; and (ii) No fact finding enquiry whatsoever, was held and petitioner was simply axed on the alleged charge of taking bribe of Rs. 10,000/- for giving approval to the digging of a pond by Anti Corruption department, Varanasi for which it is claimed that the team had led allegedly a trap on 18.12.2023.

4. In support of his first submission, learned Senior Advocate submitted that even if the Rules are silent regarding a show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to be afforded to an employee, may be working on contract basis, before rescinding a contract for the charges, the principles of natural justice would get automatically attracted. It is argued that the legal principle as evolved in a series of judgments of Supreme Court it has already been held that even if the Rules are silent, the rules of natural justice would step in to arrest any arbitrary exercise of power by the competent authority in the matter of employment. He further submits that if the authority was of the view or the alleged committee in its meeting convened on 29.01.2024 formed a view, petitioner ought have been afforded an opportunity to explain 2 WRIA No. 9766 of 2024 himself. The manner and method in which the disciplinary proceedings have been drawn against the petitioner to rescind his contract of appointment for corruption charges, speaks volume of whimsical action taken under the order impugned.

5. In support of his second submission, learned Senior Advocate submitted that merely laying a trap and arresting a person does not ipso facto result in holding a person guilty of corruption charges. He further submitted that the High Court while granting bail to the petitioner in connection with Case Crime No. 15 of 2020, under Sections 7, 13(1)b read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act clearly observed that there was no mention in the FIR of the alleged bribe, inasmuch as, the Block Development Officer being the sanctioning authority, there was no question of being any approval or sanction to be sought from the petitioner.

6. Learned Standing Counsel representing the State respondents has sought to defend the order for the reasons assigned therein, inasmuch as, he vehemently argued that the Government Order dated 27.09.2010 very clearly stipulated that the officer of the cadre of petitioner if found guilty of misconduct, his services were liable to be terminated forthwith. He further argued that a duly constituted committee held meeting as was convened on 29.01.2024 in view of the letter issued by the Secretary, Government of U.P. dated 27.09.2010 calling for a report wherein the matter was deliberated and therefore, it cannot be said that the order is whimsical in nature and that there was no due consideration accorded to the facts of the case leading to the lodging of the FIR.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that petitioner throughout denied in his writ petition and while he submitted bail application before the High Court as well that he ever demanded any money. He was not the approving authority of the project for which the trap was allegedly laid.

8. It has been subsequently pleaded vide paras 16, 17, 20 & 21 of the writ petition that neither petitioner was informed of any such meeting of the Committee headed by District Magistrate dated 29.01.2024, nor any copy thereof was supplied to the petitioner, nor petitioner was given any opportunity of hearing or show cause. Paras 16, 17, 20 & 21 of the writ petition are reproduced hereunder: "16. That having been so relieved on bail the petitioner reported for resuming his duty as Additional Program Officer. At such stage the petitioner has been informed that the services of the petitioner have been dispensed by an order dated 31.01.2024. This order has already been referred to above and annexed as Annexure 1 to this writ petition. 3 WRIA No. 9766 of 2024

17. That the aforesaid order refers to a decision taken by a Committee headed by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur in the date of 29.01.2024. NO copy of the proceedings of the said committee have been made available to the petitioner. This is despite an application having been filed by the petitioner under RTI 2005. A true copy of application filed under RTI alongwith receipt of registered post is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure 8 to this writ petition.

20. That the order impugned has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing. The order impugned has not been preceded by any notice to show cause issued to the petitioner.

21. That the petitioner was afforded no hearing either at the level of District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner - Shram Rojgar or the committee headed by the District Magistrate referred to in the order impugned."

9. Replying the above paragraphs vide para 14 of the counter affidavit sworn by Dinesh Pratap Singh,Block Development Officer, Block Maharajganj, District Jaunpur, it has only been stated that the contents of paragraph no. 16 & 17 have been suitably replied in the preceding paragraphs of the counter affidavit. However, in all the remaining preceding paragraphs 13 in number, I do not find there to be any reference of any notice or supply of the copy of any decision of the Committee to the petitioner or that petitioner was ever issued with a show cause notice prior to committee submitted its report. All that has been stated in the preceding paragraphs is that petitioner was since caught red handed taking bribe by the Anti Corruption Team, Prevention of Corruption Organization, Varanasi on 18.12.2023, there remained no doubt about his involvement in corrupt practice.

10. In so far as paragraph nos. 20 & 21 are concerned, reply has been given vide para 15 of the counter affidavit in which it has been stated that U.P. Government Service Rules were not attracted as petitioner being a contract worker under MANREGA was dismissed taking recourse to Government Order dated 27.09.2010. Thus, there is no denial of lack opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

11. In my considered view, if a contract appointment comes to an end by virtue of it being a tenure appointment, it is always at the discretion of respondent to continue such employee or not, and there can be no grievance of contract appointee against non renewal of the contract. But where the contract is rescinded by a Government authority while it is still subsisting and that too on the charges that employee was found involved in corrupt practice and hence was guilty of misconduct as has been stated in the order impugned, at least a notice or opportunity is required to be given to such 4 WRIA No. 9766 of 2024 contract employee prior to passing of the order impugned.

12. I further notice that the meeting that was convened on 29.01.2024 headed by the District Magistrate which resolved to dispense with the contract employment of the petitioner merely referred to the FIR and the incident of trap led by Anti Corruption Team on 18.12.2023 and there is no independent application of mind except reference to these facts.

13. In my considered view, mere reference to fact of corrupt practice does not lead to a conclusion, more especially when under the Prevention of Corruption Act a charged officer is yet to be convicted. Hence proper course for the authority was to give a notice to the employee to appear before the Committee and explain his conduct. Interestingly the Committee in its report does not disclose as to whether petitioner was the approving authority for the project of pond as has been alleged in the order impugned. The only reference made to para 17 of the Government Order. In order to appreciate para 17 of the Government Order, I reproduce the same herein below: "(17) अितिर्व कायर््वम अिधकारी ्षारा अपने कतर््िों एवं दाियत्वों के िनष्पादन में िशिथलता तथा िकसी भी ्ऺकार का कदाचार पाये जाने पर उनकी सेवाएं तत्काल ्ऺभाव से समाप्त कर दी जायेंगी।"

14. From a bare reading of the aforesaid paragraph of the Government Order, it goes absolutely explicit that an appointment can be terminated in the event an employee is found guilty of misconduct. Question of fraud/ corruption and misconduct are the question of facts that need adjudication at least in a summary manner in the event it is only an issue of contract appointment and service rules are not applicable that may lay down detailed procedure. The Committee that was constituted by the District Magistrate in response to the letter issued by the Secretary, Government of U.P. was required to deliberate the issue of misconduct after getting a written reply from the petitioner. In the absence of this procedure being followed and in the absence of any independent finding being returned except the matter of FIR on account of alleged trap led by the Anti Corruption Unit, Varanasi on 18.12.2023, all this would not amount to deliberation as to charge of corruption, leading to a definite finding of fact, which is mandatory to be arrived. The charges are yet to be proved and therefore, the parameters laid under the Government Order do not stand complied with.

15. In view of the above, I do not find any justification for the decision of the Committee dated 29.01.2024 to terminate the contract employment of the petitioner and also the consequential order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, (Labour & Employment), Jaunpur. 5 WRIA No. 9766 of 2024

16. I take judicial notice of the decision of the Committee dated 29.01.2024 brought on record by means of counter affidavit.

17. Thus, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 31.01.2024 as well as the decision of the committee dated 29.01.2024 are hereby quashed.

18. Petitioner shall be reinstated with current pay only. He shall be offering his explanation taking the decision of the Committee dated 29.01.2024 as a notice to him, within a period of six weeks from today. After the reply is submitted, the Committee shall re-schedule a meeting to consider the reply of the petitioner and thereafter, shall be passing order afresh. The arrears of salary and further continuance of the petitioner shall depend upon the final decision to be taken by the authority. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 IrfanUddin IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad