State Of Rajasthan And Ors vs Jaidev Singh

This appeal has been filed by the appellants assailing judgment dated 28.07.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent petitioner was allowed with certain directions.

The respondent approached this Court by way of filing writ petition against order dated 22.03.2012 passed by the Additional Programme Coordinator-cum-Chief Executive Officer (MGNREGA), Zila Parishad, Bharatpur by which services of the respondent were terminated.

The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment allowed the writ petition of the respondent, directing his reinstatement with all consequential benefits including salary for the intervening period. The respondent was also awarded cost of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid by the appellants.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge wrongly held that enquiry under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 was not conducted, therefore, termination of the respondent was bad in law. It is argued that the respondent was a contractual employee appointed under the MGNREGA Scheme and the Rules of 1958 do not apply to the respondent. It is argued that a show cause notice was issued to the respondent with certain allegations, which could not be replied by the respondent within the stipulated time, therefore, his services were rightly terminated. Apart from above, the term of employment of the respondent was not extended by the appellants due to notes of dissatisfaction with regard to his work from time to time. As regards delayed payment of salary, it is argued that the respondent was himself responsible for such delayed payment. The contract of the respondent even otherwise could not have been extended beyond five years. It is submitted that cost of Rs. 20,000/- has been wrongly imposed upon the appellants by the learned Single Judge, which should be set aside. It is, therefore, prayed that appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. It is argued that as the respondent did not get salary for more than 11 months, he gave a notice for hunger strike and decided to sit in front of the office of Appellant No. 3. Termination of services of the respondent is consequential action on the part of the appellants which suffers from mala fides. The appellants even did not wait for reply of the respondent to the show cause notice and hurriedly proceeded in the matter. The respondent was even not provided opportunity of hearing before passing of order of termination. The learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned judgment directing reinstatement of the respondent with all consequential benefits, due salary and the cost. It is therefore prayed that appeal be dismissed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment, we find ourselves unable to concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the appellants should have conducted full-fledged enquiry before terminating services of the respondent. It is not in dispute that the respondent was appointed on contractual basis and as many as nine instances were cited in the show cause notice where conduct and work of the respondent was found to be negligent and inefficient.

The appellant-employer was not under any obligation to continue the respondent in service even when he failed to render satisfactory services.

So far as direction of learned Single Judge to pay unpaid salary to the respondent is concerned, the same calls for no interference by this Court.

Therefore, impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent of quashment of termination order dated 22.03.2012 and award of cost of Rs. 20,000/- is set aside.

However, direction with regard to payment of outstanding salary of 11 months to the respondent is upheld. The direction of the learned Single Judge to take action against the officer who passed the order of termination dated 22.03.2012 also cannot be upheld and the same is also set aside.

The appeal is allowed in part with the aforesaid directions.