Rajkumar Paliwal vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his challenge to the order of his repatriation to his placement agency i.e. M/s. Human Resource Associates, Udaipur, the appellant-writ-petitioner seeks redress.

We have heard Mr. Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-writ-petitioner.

The pleaded versions of the parties, in short, would be necessary to better comprehend the issues involved. According to the appellant-writ-petitioner, he was appointed as LDC under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme (for short, hereinafter referred to as "SSA") in the office of the Block Resource Centre Facilitator (for short, hereinafter referred to as "BRCF") Girwa District Udaipur on 9.1.2009. While he was engaged as such and rendering satisfactory services, a show cause notice dated 13.4.2011 was served on him asking him to reply to the queries made thereby. The queries were reiterated by a subsequent notice dated 19.4.2011. The appellant-writ-petitioner in his reply dated 25.4.2011 sought for copies of the orders of the store incharge contending that in absence thereof it was not possible for him to respond to the show cause notice. By a subsequent notice dated 28.7.2011 the respondents required the appellant-writ-petitioner to explain the shortage of Rs. 6888/- in the cash deposits, whereafter he submitted his explanation. He was also by a letter dated 30.8.2011 asked to explain the absence of some materials from the store to which he did submit his reply. According to the appellant-writ-petitioner, he thereafter applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and obtained the copy of the report based on an enquiry conducted of the accounts and the related records for the year 2010-11 which revealed the illegal acts of Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma, Block Resource Centre Facilitator, Girwa. It was at that stage that to his shock and surprise he was served with an order dated 5.10.2011 whereby his services were repatriated to the aforementioned placement agency. Contending that the impugned action was illegal and that the same had been taken without affording him a reasonable opportunity, he approached this Court seeking intervention in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The respondents no. 2 to 5 in their reply while admitting that the appellant-writ-petitioner was appointed in the office of the BRCF, Girwa, Udaipur on 9.1.2009 questioned the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of being laden with the disputed questions of fact. They averred as well that the Rajasthan Council of Elementary Education Society registered under the Rajasthan Society Registration Act, 1958 of which Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan is a project, was not an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus, was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. According to them, the appellant-writ-petitioner was appointed through a placement agency to render his services with SSA on a contract basis for a fixed term and subject to the terms and conditions as fixed by such agency. They alleged that the appellant-writ-petitioner was found guilty of committing embezzlement and though asked for he having failed to provide any explanation, his services were returned to the placement agency. The respondents referred inter-alia to the communications addressed to the appellant-writ-petitioner making queries with regard to shortage of Rs. 6888/- in the cash deposit, physical verification of the office stock, demand register as well as non-compliance of the orders of the superior authorities of SSA together with the inspection report to reinforce their plea of involvement of the appellant-writ-petitioner in grave financial irregularities in his day to day functioning. They averred as well that thorough deliberations on the issue had preceded the decision to return his services and that eventually the order to that effect was passed on a decision being taken in that regard by the concerned District Project Coordinator.

The learned Single Judge, to reiterate, declined to interfere with the decision impugned inter-alia on the ground that contentious facts pertaining to financial irregularities could not be probed into in the exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court and that as the appellant-writ-petitioner had been appointed on a contract basis, his repatriation to the placement agency was not stigmatic or by way of punishment warranting any interference by this Court.

Mr. Singh has emphatically argued that as it is apparent from the reply of the respondents that the appellant-writ-petitioner has been discontinued from service under them on the charge of financial irregularities, the impugned action is per se illegal in absence of any regular enquiry into the said allegations after affording reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Apart from contending that the charges are frivolous and the appellant-writ-petitioner having been appointed as LDC was not associated in any way with the accounts, the learned counsel has insisted that his purported repatriation to the placement agency tantamounts to dismissal from service.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-writ-petitioner and on a consideration of the pleaded facts and the documents on record, we are unable to lend our concurrence to the pleas raised. That the appellant-writ-petitioner, to start with, was appointed on a contract basis, his services having been lent by his placement agency-M/s. Human Resource Associates, Udaipur is evident from its letter dated 9.1.2009 (Annex. 1 to the writ petition). That various communications were issued by the respondents to the appellant-writ-petitioner asking him to reply to the queries with regard to the physical verification of the office stock, payment vouchers, shortage of Rs. 6888/- in the cash deposit, missing of materials from the store, non-compliance of orders of the superior authorities etc. is more than apparent from the documents appended to the writ petition. Apart there from, the inspection report does disclose that the audit of the accounts of the office of the BRCF Girwa for the period from April, 2010 to March, 2011 had been conducted between 26.4.2011 to 10.5.2011 and in course whereof, on 26.4.2011, the sealed records were opened in presence of the officers/staff concerned including the appellant-writ-petitioner. That he was employed as LDC/Cashier on and from 1.4.2009 continuously was recorded. The investigation revealed that there was a shortage of amount of Rs. 6888/- in the cash deposit as per cash book, which the team concluded did amount to embezzlement. The investigating team held the appellant-writ-petitioner along with one Sunil Kumar Gang, R.P.-cum-Accountant guilty for the said embezzlement and for this, Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma, Block Resource Centre Coordinator was also found to be lacking in superintendence. That the engagement of the appellant-writ-petitioner through placement agency was irregular was mentioned as well. In course of the investigation, it was revealed too that payments have been made without making prior entries of the concerned bills. That the statutory deductions were not made before releasing payment of the bills on more than one occasion in favour of different firms was recorded and the appellant-writ-petitioner also found to have committed irregularity in making payment for refreshments of the audit team. Most importantly, the entire exercise leading to these disclosures was conducted in presence of the appellant-writ-petitioner.

In this view of the matter, on a conjoint consideration of the communications dated 13.4.2011, 28.7.2011 & 30.8.2011 as well as the inspection report referred to hereinabove, we do not feel persuaded to hold that the impugned action of the respondents is violative of the principles of natural justice. To reiterate, the appellant-writ-petitioner was appointed on a contract basis. His endeavour to disassociate himself from the accounts branch and the activities pertaining thereto is wholly belied by the contemporaneous materials on record. The impugned action in the attendant facts and circumstances cannot be repudiated to be illegal, arbitrary or violative of the notion of fairness in action. We are thus of the unhesitant opinion that the impugned judgment and order does not warrant any interference.

The appeal fails and is dismissed.