Respondents/ vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4840 Jhar

                                       [1]


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                L.P.A. No. 403 of 2020
        Lakshmi Narayan Prasad, aged about 50 years, son of Late Sitaram Sah,
        resident of Nagra Toli, PO & PS: Lalpur, District-Ranchi.

                                                     ... ... Respondents/Appellants
                                         Versus

    1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of
        Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO & PS: Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

    2. Secretary, Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development Department,
        Government of Jharkhand, Planning Building, PO & PS: Doranda, District-
        Ranchi.

    3. Joint Secretary, Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development
        Department, Government of Jharkhand, Planning Building, PO & PS:
        Doranda, District-Ranchi.

    4. Director, Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, Planning
        Building, PO & PS: Doranda, District-Ranchi.

    5. Principal In-charge, Government Women Polytechnic, Tharpakhna,
        Ranchi, PO & PS: Lalpur, District-Ranchi.
                                                    ... ... Respondents/Respondents
                                        -------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

-------

For the Appellant : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Gaurav Raj, Advocate

----------------------------

ORAL JUDGMENT 04/Dated: 02nd December, 2022

1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the

order/judgment dated 24.11.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this

Court in W.P.(S) No. 4269 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the writ

petition has been dismissed by declining to interfere with the order dated [2]

20.06.2019 by which the writ petitioner has terminated with immediate

effect.

2. The brief facts as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which require

to be enumerated herein, read as under:

The writ petitioner was appointed on the post of Campus

Supervisor, a class-III post in the Government Women Polytechnic Ranchi

by appointment letter dated 06.06.1997 on contract. The writ petitioner,

while working as such for a period of more than 22 years, raised his

grievance for regularization in service which having not been considered,

has filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4923 of 2015. The said writ

petition, however, is still sub-judice before this Court.

The writ petitioner while working as such, was allotted with the

work in Government Polytechnic Ranchi and during the service period,

allegation has been levelled on the basis of the report dated 14.06.2019 of

the two-men fact finding committee and the writ petitioner was terminated

from service vide order dated 20.06.2019.

Being aggrieved with the same, a writ petition has been filed

being W.P.(S) No. 4269 of 2019 in which the writ petitioner has taken the

ground that without initiating any departmental proceeding, the writ

petitioner has been terminated which is against the principles of natural

justice.

The respondent-State has taken the plea that since the writ

petitioner was appointed on contractual basis, therefore, there is no

requirement to take penal action by initiating a departmental proceeding [3]

rather the appointment can be dispensed with by following the terms and

conditions of the offer of appointment.

The learned Single Judge, considering the rival submissions

advanced on behalf of the parties, has refused to interfere with the order of

termination while dismissing the writ petition, which is the subject matter

of the instant intra-court appeal.

3. Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has

assailed the order on the ground that that issue of non-initiation of the

departmental proceeding has not been appreciated by the learned Single

Judge and thereby, the non-observance of the principles of natural justice

has been discarded while showing no interference with the order of

termination dated 20.06.2019 and hence, the order passed by the learned

Single Judge requires interference.

4. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State has

defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It has been

contended that the writ petitioner since is an appointee on contractual basis,

as such, there is no requirement to initiate a departmental proceeding rather

the requirement before taking such decision is to follow the terms and

conditions of the offer of appointment.

Here, in the given facts of the case, serious allegation has come

against the writ petitioner in a two-men fact finding committee wherein the

nature of allegation considering to be serious, a decision has been taken to

rescind the contract.

It has further been contended that the learned Single Judge, after

taking into consideration the nature of appointment to be on contractual [4]

basis as also considering the latches on the part of the writ petitioner which

led the competent authority to take decision of rescinding the contract, is

correct in not interfering with the order dated 20.06.2019 and hence, the

same requires no interference.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents

available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single

Judge.

6. The issue has been raised on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner that

departmental proceeding has not been initiated before terminating the writ

petitioner, as such, the order of termination is bad in the eyes of law and

the same having not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge, the

order impugned requires interference.

7. This Court has appreciated the appointment letter dated 06.06.1997

appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition and has found therefrom that

the appointment of the writ petitioner was purely on contractual basis.

8. It is, thus, evident that the writ petitioner has been appointed purely on

contractual basis and while discharging his duty, irregularity has been

surfaced in negligence of the discharge of the duty as per the report of the

two-men fact finding committee which pertains to showing no sincerity in

the unsocial and illegal activities in the Polytechnic Campus and even no

information was given of such unsocial and illegal activities to the higher

authority.

It further appears from the report of the two-men fact finding

committee appended to the paperbook having been annexed in the counter

affidavit which is part of the memo of appeal wherein the committee has [5]

found serious lapses in the discharge of the official duty by the writ

petitioner. It has been found in course of enquiry that five to seven persons

have illegally encroached the area by Praveen Kumar; Gautam Singh and;

Ashdeo who were found to be in occupation of the rooms in the Campus of

the Polytechnic Institution since long and were found to be involved in the

unsocial and illegal activities.

The activities of such persons have also been observed in the

CCTV and it has come in the enquiry that the writ petitioner was

supervisor in the Polytechnic Campus but no endeavour has been taken

against such persons. The Committee, therefore, has made recommendation

to forthwith post the Principal In-charge namely, Shri Ayodhya Kumar,

outside the Ranchi under a senior officer as also to institute FIR against

him.

It has further been recommended against the writ petitioner to

remove him from the place.

9. It is, thus, evident that the enquiry committee has found dereliction in duty

on the part of the Principal In-charge as also the supervisor, the writ

petitioner herein. The competent authority has acted upon such

recommendation and has decided to rescind the contract and in

consequence thereof, the writ petitioner has been terminated from

contractual engagement.

10. The position of law is well settled that if an appointment is made on

contractual basis, such contractual engagee is having no right to be retained

in service if the employer is not willing to extend the contract and since the

writ petitioner is having no legal vested right to retain in service, as such, [6]

the contract has been rescinded, therefore, the decision taken by the

authority cannot be said to suffer from error.

11. This Court, having discussed the fact in entirety has gone across the order

passed by the learned Single Judge and has found therefrom that the writ

petitioner since was an appointee on contract and his work has not been

found to be satisfactory and it is the condition stipulated in the offer of

appointment that if the work is not found to be satisfactory the contract will

not be extended and in that view of the matter the learned Single Judge has

refused to interfere with the order of termination which according to our

considered view, cannot be said to suffer from error.

12. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

Saurabh /N.A.F.R.