Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Makhan Chandra Roy vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 9 March, 2016
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
1
Sl. AD 06
09.03.2016
S.d.
W. P 4120(W) of 2016
Makhan Chandra Roy
-versus-
The State of West Bengal and others
Mr. Subrata Mukhopadhya
Mr. Pritam Chowdhury
Mr. Abhisek Addhya
.....for the petitioner.
Mr. Sadananda Ganguly
Mr. Debapratim Banerjee
....for the respondents.
The petitioner complains of the petitioner's removal from the contractual post of District Child Protection Officer in Cooch Behar on the subjective opinion of the District Magistrate that the petitioner's performance was "not at all satisfactory".
The petitioner says when the petitioner's performance was found to be unsatisfactory, the petitioner ought to have been afforded an opportunity to explain his position, the circumstances in which the petitioner functioned and any other impediments to his working; and the veritable removal of the petitioner from the contractual post without hearing the petitioner is illegal. The 2 petitioner places the reasons indicated for the petitioner's perceived unsatisfactory performance in a notesheet of May 14, 2015 prepared by the Additional District Magistrate. The petitioner says that the petitioner has filed a detailed answer to all the grounds recorded in the note. The petitioner says that the charge of unsatisfactory performance is baseless.
The petitioner has not been removed from the contractual post by alleging any misconduct or by attaching any stigma to the petitioner. The petitioner's performance was found to be unsatisfactory by the employer.
In matters as to performance, particularly in contractual engagements, the subjective assessment of the employer is supreme and the decision is almost not justiciable unless mala fides are established.
In a vain attempt to challenge the decision of the District Magistrate, the petitioner refers to the previous appraisals of the petitioner's performance. The petitioner says that it is not possible that a person who has been consistently found to have been performed satisfactorily suddenly became a non performer. The petitioner says that the various reasons indicated in the ADM's note should have been forwarded to the petitioner and the decision of the ADM or the District Magistrate should have been taken only after the petitioner's version was seen and assessed. 3
Just as it is difficult to remove a public servant from service, it is equally difficult for a person in a contractual engagement to challenge the order of disengagement or removal unless which the same attributes any misconduct to the person or such person is able to establish that the order is mala fide. In the matter of assessment of performance of a contracted employee whose contract can be determined without assigning any reasons, the subjective satisfaction of the employer as to his unsatisfactory performance can scarcely be questioned. Since no extraordinary grounds have been cited to discredit the impugned order, WP 4120(W) of 2016 is dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) 4