Shri Madan Lal @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

The instant petition was initially filed by two petitioners namely Mangu Singh & Madan Lal. Petitioner No. 1 Mangu Singh moved an application for

deletion of his name from the array of the petitioners and this Court vide order dt. 24th July, 2017, deleted name of the petitioner Mangu Singh from

the array of the petitioners.

Petitioner-Madan Lal has challenged the orders dt. 14th July, 2009 (Annex. 4) & 4th February, 2015 (Annex. 10).

Petitioner has pleaded in his petition that he came to be appointed as Junior Technical Assistant on 25th March, 2008 on contract basis under the

National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. Petitioner has pleaded that financial irregularities were committed by Sarpanch of Gram

Panchayat, Basoli, Smt. Sita Bai and as such one report was submitted on 17th  June, 2009.

Petitioner has submitted in his petition that initially an order dt. 14th July, 2009 was passed terminating his services, due to registration of an FIR and

such termination was only up to period of completion of the investigation by police. Petitioner has submitted in his petition that the Police after

investigation filed final report and the petitioner was not implicated in the criminal case.

Petitioner has pleaded in his petition that in spite of not being found an accused in the criminal case, the respondents- District Collector -District

Program Coordinator issued an order dt. 4th February, 2015, wherein he has decided not to take the petitioner back on contract basis, on the ground

that he has been found guilty of committing financial irregularity, as per the enquiry conducted at the Department level.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the police did not make the petitioner accused in the criminal case and final report was submitted,

petitioner ought to have been reinstated back in service since as per the order dt. 14th July, 2009 (Annex.4), services of the petitioner were

discontinued only up to the period of police investigation.

Counsel has submitted that the other persons who were also involved in financial irregularity, have been allowed to continue and petitioner has been

singled out. Counsel has submitted that in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, names of such persons like Avtar Singh Meena, Ratan Lal Umaria,

Snehlata Gurjar & Rakesh Gurjar have been given, who in spite of being found guilty of financial irregularity, have been continued in service.

Counsel has submitted that impugned order dt. 4th February, 2015, has been passed on a wrong premise and petitioner could not have been terminated

from service only on account of some findings given by a committee constituted to look into financial irregularities without affording proper opportunity

of hearing to the petitioner.

Counsel has submitted that regular department enquiry has not been conducted and as such the entire exercise of the respondents in removing the

petitioner from the job, suffers from legal infirmity.

The respondents have filed reply to the petition. It has been averred in the preliminary objection that petitioner was appointed as Junior Technical

Assistant and due to registration of FIR, initially the petitioner was discontinued due to pendency of investigation in the FIR. It has been averred that

a domestic enquiry against the petitioner was conducted by the Additional District Programmee Co-ordinator-cum-Executive Engineer (EGS), Zila

Parishad, Bundi, who acted as Enquiry Officer and detailed enquiry report was submitted after giving personal hearing to the petitioner on 4th

February, 2015, wherein the petitioner was found guilty of variation and violation of the prescribed technical measurements in the performance of

work and further found to be indulged in making irregular payment of Rs. 101120/- towards purchase of material.

It has been asserted by the respondents in the reply that the Chief Executive Officer cum Additional District Programme Coordinator, Zila Parishad,

Bundi heard personally the petitioner on 5th November, 2014, 17th February, 2014, 5th January, 2015 & 27th  January, 2015 and after considering

the entire record & factual background, the District Collector cum District Programme Coordinator (MNREGA), Bundi refused to reinstate the

petitioner in service.

Counsel has submitted that as far as reference of other persons against whom recovery is said to be pending, such persons have been only issued

experience certificate and petitioner cannot claim equity with the other persons, who are continued in service.

Counsel submitted that due compliance of natural justice has been made and the present petitioner is not a regularly selected employee/Government

Servant against whom full fledged enquiry under Rule 16 of CCA Rules 1958 could be initiated.

Counsel has submitted that the petitioner’s employment was only on contract basis and if such employee indulged in financial irregularity and also

found to be involved in a criminal case, retention of such person in the job is not desirable in purity of administration.

Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has not only violated the various instructions which have been issued from time to time for supervising the

work under MNREGA but was also party to the financial irregularity.

I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

This Court finds that initially order dt. 14th July, 2009 was issued as a stop goal arrangement to see that police carries out its investigation in respect of

the FIR registered in financial irregularities alleged to have been committed by Sarpanch and other employees working in MNREGA. The impugned

order dt. 14th July, 2009 was required to be passed, as continuance of the petitioner could affect the investigation which was to be carried out by the

police.

This Court does not find any illegality in the order passed on 14th July, 2009, as the petitioner was appointed on contract basis and if there was any

allegation of committing financial irregularity and police case was registered, the employer in best of the interest of the organization decided to

terminate the services of the petitioner & two other persons and relieved them.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner could not have been relieved from the job as no opportunity of hearing was given to

him, this Court finds that employment of the petitioner was on contract basis and as per the terms and conditions enumerated in the agreement, the

petitioner cannot be conferred with the status of a regular Government employee, as to protect him by invoking the provisions of CCA Rules, 1958.

The order dt. 4th February, 2015, has been passed by the respondents and the District Collector after considering the report submitted by the Enquiry

Officer, has recorded a finding that petitioner was afforded full opportunity to defend himself and he appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 5th

November, 2014, 17th December, 2014, 5th January, 2015 & 27th January, 2015.

The Enquiry Officer has also taken into account the documents which were produced before him and after giving opportunity of personal hearing on

4th February, 2015, District Collector passed the order. This Court finds that the petitioner only on the basis of not being implicated as an accused

by the Police in a criminal case, cannot have right to continue on the job as the financial irregularity has been found to be committed by him.

This Court finds that the persons who were employed on contract basis and working in a project known as MNREGA, cannot be allowed to claim a

status as of a Government Servant and as such no regular Department enquiry is envisaged, for dealing with the terms and conditions of such

employees.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice was given to the petitioner to explain his case before the authority concerned, this

Court finds that on several dates notices have been given and finally personal hearing was also afforded on 4th February, 2015, before passing the

impugned order. The allegation of principle of natural justice is not found to be proved from the facts which are available on record.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that other employees against whom recovery proceedings were also pending are continuing in

service and as such petitioner has been discriminated, this Court finds that petitioner cannot claim any similar treatment to continue in the services.

The principle of equality as claimed by the petitioner as per Article 14 of the Constitution of India, will not apply in the instant case. The continuance

of persons in the job by the employer in certain circumstances, will not give any license to the petitioner to claim equality.

This Court finds that the report which has been prepared by the Enquiry Officer, deals with the several irregularities which have been committed by

the employees including the petitioner.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that only a recovery of Rs. 29,000/- has been finally ordered against the petitioner and as such he

cannot be singled out for reinstatement, this Court finds that financial irregularities once committed by the petitioner and his working on contract basis,

will not make him entitled for reinstatement in service.

Accordingly, the present writ petition does not have any force and the same is dismissed.