Sri Sujit Saha vs The State Of Tripura
2021 Latest Caselaw 169 Tri

                                Page 1 of 4


                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA

                             W.P. (C) No.347/2020

Sri Sujit Saha
S/O - Late Narendra Chandra Saha, resident of Saradapalli, 79 Tilla, PO -
Kunjaban - 799006, P.S. - New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura.

                                                       .....Petitioner(s)

                            Versus

1. The State of Tripura.
   Represented by the Secretary, Directorate of Health Services,
   Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex, PO- Kunjaban -
   799006, PS - NCC, District - West Tripura.

2. The Director,
   Directorate of Health Services, Government of Tripura,
   Gorkhabasti, PO - Kunjaban - 799006, PS - NCC, Dist - West Tripura.

3. The Medical Superintendent,
   AGMC and GBP Hospital, PO- Kunjaban - 799006, PS - NCC,
   District - West Tripura.

4. The Member Secretary,
   Tripura State Blood Transfusion Council, AGMC and GBP Hospital,
   PO - Kunjaban - 799006, PS - NCC, District - West Tripura.

                                                        .....Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sankar Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)             : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. GA.


       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI


Date of hearing and judgment : 11.02.2021.

Whether fit for reporting     : No.



                     JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Petitioner has challenged an order dated 12.03.2020 by which after

giving one month's notice, his service as a Casual Worker was terminated

in exercise of powers under Rule 5(1) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules,

1965.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner was initially engaged

as a substitute worker in the year 1995. He would be summoned for work

whenever a regular employee was on leave. He would be paid wages only

for the days he would get actual work. In the year 2010 along with several

other persons, under a Memorandum dated 30.03.2010, the petitioner was

granted the status of Casual Worker with effect from 01.01.2010. The

petitioner continued to do the said work and was attached to AGMC &

GBP hospital, Agartala. On 12.03.2020, the Director of Health Services

issued impugned notice of termination in which he referred to one incident

which had come to the notice of the administration where allegedly the

petitioner had made demand and received money for arranging blood for

the patients from the blood bank of the hospital. In that view of the matter,

the petitioner was given one month's notice upon completion of which

period his service would be terminated. The petitioner replied to the said

notice under a letter dated 19.03.2020 and denied the allegations pointing

out that he had no power to arrange for blood and that on a mere oral

allegation his long standing service should not be terminated.

3. In response to notice issued, the respondents have appeared and filed

a reply along with which they have produced a copy of an internal inquiry

report dated 02.03.2020 submitted by Member Secretary of the Hospital in

which he had stated that as per the demand of the petitioner, the relative of

the patient had handed over Rs.1,300/- for blood to one Smt. Chabi

Majumder and promised to pay further sum of Rs.700/.

4. The facts on record would show that the petitioner has been working

for the hospital in different capacity right from 1995. Since 01.01.2010 he

is enjoying the status of a Casual Worker. He thus worked for nearly 10

years, during which period, no untoward incident involving him has been

cited by the respondents. Under such circumstances, when the respondents

were summarily terminating the engagement of the petitioner, that too by

citing reason which would stigmatize his termination, bare modicum of

hearing was necessary. I am not suggesting that before bringing about the

termination of the employment of the petitioner, the department had to

hold a full-fledged inquiry. The protection of tenure enjoyed by a regular

Government servant cannot be extended to the petitioner. However, when

the department had conducted an internal inquiry and on the basis of the

findings of the inquiry, terminated the service of the petitioner by citing

the reason of illegal money demand, at least, the petitioner should have

been permitted to respond to such allegations.

5. Under the circumstances, by disposing of this petition, impugned

notice of termination is set aside. The respondents shall give a brief notice

to the petitioner and permit the petitioner to make his representation to the

proposed action of termination. The petitioner already has a copy of the

internal inquiry report. After considering the representation of the

petitioner, the competent authority shall take a fresh decision as may be

advised. As long as such a decision is taken within a period of 3 (three)

months from today, it would not be necessary to give work to the petitioner

for the said period or to pay wages thereof.

6. Petition disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also

stands disposed of.

(AKIL KURESHI), CJ

sima