Devi Prasad Chakrawarti vs State of M.P. and Others

R.S. Jha, J.—Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondents, Collector and Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Betul, District Betul are not permitting the petitioner to work as Project Officer in the Water Shed Management Mission, Betul in spite of the fact that the competent authority i.e. the Director of the mission has not cancelled the contract of appointment of the petitioner nor has he passed any adverse order against the petitioner and on the contrary, his term of contract has been extended for two years by order dated 15-5-2012 (Annexure P-4).

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that certain allegations by way of an anonymous complaint were made against the petitioner while he was working at Betul but without conducting any enquiry or giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the respondent/C.E.O. proposed to cancel the contractual appointment of the petitioner by order dated 17-2-2012 although he had no authority to do so as the Director of the mission is the competent authority. It is also submitted that thereafter the petitioner filed a representation and subsequently the Director of the mission by order dated 15-5-2012 extended the contractual appointment of the petitioner for a period of two years but the Collector, Betul, by order dated 11-6-2012 has again proposed cancellation of the order of contractual appointment of the petitioner in spite of the order of continuation passed by the Director of the mission and is not permitting the petitioner to work.

It is submitted that the impugned action of the respondent/authorities suffers from the vice of violation of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the decision on the local level has been taken without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or conducting any enquiry as envisaged by Clauses 4 and 5 of the contractual agreement and as the Collector, Betul is not permitting the petitioner to work, in spite of a valid order in favour of the petitioner, therefore, in such circumstances appropriate directions be issued to the respondent/authorities.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after a perusal of the record it is observed that the petitioner has already approached the respondents by filing representations, Annexures P-7 and P-8 for mitigation of his grievance, therefore, without entering into the merits of the case the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner files a fresh representation before the Commissioner of the Mission alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition within 15 days of obtaining the same, the concerned authority shall consider the petitioner''s representation in accordance with law, keeping in mind Clauses 4, 5 and other clauses of the contractual agreement, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months thereafter.

With the aforesaid observations/directions the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.