Bombay High Court
Ayesha Mansoor Danwade vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 5 July, 2023
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, S. G. Chapalgaonkar
1 WP / 147575 / 2029
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 14575 OF 2019
Ayesha Mansoor Danwade,
Age : 38 years, Occu : Service,
R/o : Opposite Kupwad Janta Nagri Patsanstha,
Old Madhav Nagar Road, Ulhas Nagar,
Kupwad, Sangli Tq : Miraj, Dist. : Sangli .. Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2] The Additional Director General of Police
& Inspector General of Prisons
and Correctional Services,
State of Maharashtra, Pune 411 001
3] The Superintendent of Jail,
Aurangabad Central Jail,
Harsool, Aurangabad,
Tq. and Dist. : Aurangabad .. Respondents
...
Advocate for petitioner : Mr. G.R. Syed
AGP for the respondents no. 1 to 3 - State : Mr. A.S. Shinde
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 15 JUNE 2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 05 JULY 2023
JUDGMENT (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP
waives service for all the respondents.
2 WP / 147575 / 2029
3. At the joint request, the matter is heard finally at the stage
of admission.
4. According to the petitioner, in a project that was being run
by the State of Maharashtra in collaboration with Tata trust, social
workers were appointed to look after the welfare and rehabilitation of
the prisoners in the 5 central jails. The petitioner was appointed on a
contract basis for a period of 11 months initially pursuant to an
advertisement dated 10-11-2016. She was continued in succession for
next tenure of 11 months each, last of which was to end on
09-12-2019. However, abruptly without assigning any reason and
without extending any opportunity of being heard a stigmatic and illegal
decision was taken to terminate her services by the communication /
order dated 03-08-2019. Hence, this petition.
5. The learned advocate Mr. Syed for the petitioner would
take us through the papers and would demonstrate that the petitioner
was discharging her duties and had taken initiative while interacting
with the prisoners. Her work was appreciated. However, in the latter
part she was being singled out by the other officers and employees of
the jail. She was being mentally harassed. She had put up several
grievances with the superiors and instead of enquiring into her
allegations her employment was brought to an end. The decision is
3 WP / 147575 / 2029
arbitrary and capricious and suffers from the vice of lack of principles of
natural justice.
6. The learned AGP referring to the affidavit in reply filed by
the Jayant Sega Naik, Superintendent of Jail, Aurangabad Central Jail
submitted that the project was a collaboration between the State
government and the Tata trust by virtue of agreement dated
31-03-2019. It was for a period of 3 years and it has already come to
an end. Therefore, for this reason alone, the petitioner's grievance
cannot be addressed.
7. He would further submit that the petitioner's employment
was purely on a contract basis. She had no right to continue. There
were reasons to terminate the employment. It was noticed that there
was indiscipline and breach of prison rules and having considered all
these aspects she was discharged by the impugned communication.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Syed would then refer to the
affidavit in rejoinder and would submit that the affidavit in reply is
absolutely silent as to if the project has continued subsequently after
completion of first tenure of 3 years. Though the affidavit in reply
contains some additional reasons and the reply is annexed with certain
documents reflecting on the alleged conduct of the petitioner, when the
impugned communication / order does not contain any such ground,
4 WP / 147575 / 2029
the respondents are not entitled to add to the grounds which prevailed
and were expressly communicated to the petitioner while terminating
her employment.
9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused
the papers.
10. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed pursuant to a
project that was undertaken and was to continue for a period of 3
years, between the State Government and the Tata trust. It has been
specifically mentioned in the affidavit in reply that the project was a pilot
project for a period of 3 years and has lived its life to the fullest. Though
the petitioner has filed a rejoinder and has expected the State to
emphatically state that the project is closed, there cannot be a negative
proof. If according to the petitioner the project still continues she ought
to have taken pains to prove this fact by leading cogent material. That
being not the case, for this reason alone, the grievance of the petitioner
cannot be entertained.
11. So far as the impugned communication is concerned,
petitioner's services have been terminated by the impugned
communication which reads that her performance was not satisfactory.
At the outset, it is necessary to note that the impugned communication
merely informs the petitioner that her performance was not satisfactory.
We are emphasizing this aspect only because according to the
5 WP / 147575 / 2029
averments in the petition, the order is stigmatic when she has not been
stated to be guilty of anything.
12. True it is that contrary to the decision in the matter of
Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi and others; 1978(1) SCC 405, the
affidavit in reply contains same reasons and grounds which had led to
the termination of the employment. Obviously, none of these find place
in the impugned communication and no such grounds can be permitted
to be supplemented.
13. However, when admittedly the petitioner's employment
was purely on temporary and ad-hoc basis, even if the impugned
communication only refers to unsatisfactory performance the papers
annexed to the affidavit in reply, to our mind, clearly demonstrate that
there were allegations and counter allegations between the petitioner
on the one hand and the other employees of the jail on the other hand.
She had put up several grievances by quoting different incidents to
demonstrate as to how she was being harassed. However,
simultaneously, there are copies of the e-mails which are apparently
the internal communications of the employees of the Tata trust who
were superior to the petitioner which clearly indicate that even these
officers had found the petitioner's continuing in the employment to be
improper.
6 WP / 147575 / 2029
14. We do not intend to go into all those communications but
we simply refer to them to ascertain as to if there were circumstances
which would indicate that the authorities could have possibly and
reasonably decided to put an end to the employment. When the
employees of the Tata trust themselves had found her continuing in the
employment and her behaviour at the workplace being improper,
we do not find any illegality in the authorities deciding to bring the
contractual employment to an end.
15. It being a purely an employment of temporary and
contractual nature, the petitioner does not have any inherent right to
continue with the employment if the respondents are of the view that
her services are no longer necessary.
16. True it is that in the affidavit in rejoinder the petitioner has
denied all such correspondence produced with the affidavit in reply.
However, such a denial is clearly evasive and does not seek to offer
any response to the contents thereof. It is not her version that those
are fabricated or forged documents. Consequently, we are merely
referring to these documents to ascertain as to if there were sufficient
and cogent reasons for the respondent - authorities to terminate the
employment or was the decision arbitrary and capricious. To our mind
the impugned order is preceded by the objective scrutiny of petitioner's
7 WP / 147575 / 2029
performance and takes a plausible view that her service was not
necessary.
17. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed.
18. Rule is discharged.
[ S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
