in ,

Contingency employment cannot terminated in simplicitor manner: MP High Court

hc
Share
  •  
  • 19
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    19
    Shares

Recently, Division Bench comprising Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav (MP High Court )Held: when the services of a temporary employee or a probationer or contingency paid employee is brought to an end by passing innocuous order due to unsatisfactory nature of service or on account of an act for which some action is taken, but the termination is made in a simplicitor manner without conducting of inquiry or without casting any stigma on the employee, the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules 1980 can be taken aid of.

However, when the termination is founded on acts of commission or omission, which amounts to misconduct. Such an order casts stigma on the conduct, character and work of the employee and hence, the principle of natural justice, opportunity of hearing and inquiry is requirement of law.

The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of termination of his services

dated 06.06.2017 (Annexure-P-6) passed by the District & Sessions Judge,

Betul and the order dated 20.06.2018 (Annexure-P-9) whereby, the Registrar

General of the High Court of M.P., has rejected his departmental appeal.

The petitioner has relied upon the judgments in the case of Rahul Tripathi vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal1, Krishna Pal v. District & Sessions Judge, Morena2, Ramcharan vs. State of M.P. and others3, and Malkhan Singh Malviya vs. State of M.P.4 and submits that on the basis of aforesaid legal

pronouncement when stigmatic order is passed against an employee, the same

requires conducting of a departmental enquiry and without departmental

enquiry, such an order casting stigma, is against the principle of natural justice.

The short question of law involved in the present case is as to whether

the services of an employee under the Rules relating to Recruitment and

Conditions of Service of Contingency Paid (District and Sessions Judge

Establishment) Employees Rules, 1980, can be terminated without conducting a departmental enquiry when an order of termination casts stigma on the

employee.

Court said it was in with the legal position expounded in various judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. However,

in the instant case, the question that arise for consideration, as stated above, is

squarely covered by the decision of co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case

of Krishna Pal Vs. District & Sessions Judge, Morena (supra). In the present

case, it is an admitted fact that neither charge-sheet was issued nor departmental

enquiry was conducted and order of termination attributes dereliction of duty

amounting to misconduct, and hence, the same is clearly stigmatic order.

The petitioner’s services are admittedly governed under the Rules of 1980. If the

facts and situation of the present case is examined in the context of the facts and

situation of the case of Krishna Pal (supra), it is found that this Court had

taken a view (para-5 of the said judgment) that Normally when the services of a

temporary employee or a probationer or contingency paid employee is brought

to an end by passing innocuous order due to unsatisfactory nature of service or

on account of an act for which some action is taken,

but the termination is made in a simplicitor manner without conducting of inquiry or without casting any stigma on the employee, the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules 1980 can be taken aid of.

However, when the termination is founded on acts of commission or omission, which amounts to misconduct. Such an order casts stigma on the conduct, character and work of the employee and hence, the principle of natural justice, opportunity of hearing and inquiry is requirement of law.

Also Read  Orissa High Court cites United Nations declaration while granting Victim Compensation to the informant from State legal service authority