Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Kumar Paswan vs Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd And Ors on 25 August, 2015
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 849 of 2014
...
Rajesh Kumar Paswan ... ...Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Niga Ltd. Ranchi
2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Jharkhand Urja Vikas Niga Ltd., Ranchi
3. The Joint Secretary-II,Jharkhand
Urja Vikas Niga Ltd., Ranchi
4. The Executive Engineer, Jharkhand
Urja Vikas Niga Ltd., Ranchi ... Respondents
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
...
For the Petitioner : - M/s A. K. Tiwari, Adv.
For the JUVNL : - M/s Amit Kumar, Adv.
....
02/25.08.2015Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner admittedly was Trainee Junior Electrical Engineer engaged on contractual basis initially vide letter no. 2816 dated 04.06.2007, Annexure-1 whose tenure was extended from time to time. On account of being arrested in a criminal case by the Vigilance Department on 08.11.2012 while accepting bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from Rajesh Dahanga, petitioner was sent to judicial custody and Vigilance Case No. 28/12 was instituted. His performance/conduct having been found not satisfactory on account of aforesaid serious charges of having accepted bribe, contractual engagement was terminated vide impugned order at Annexure-4 bearing office order no. 2406 dated 19.12.2012 by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board. The petitioner has challenged the same on the ground that it is stigmatic and has been imposed without guilt having been established against him in a criminal proceeding, which is pending.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the charge of accepting bribery, he should have been proceeded departmentally before inflicting any punishment.
According to the respondent, petitioner was an employee engaged on contractual basis and that too as a trainee. As per terms of engagement, if his performance is not found to be satisfactory, contract would be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. It is submitted that their could not be more serious charge as the present one, since the petitioner was arrested while taking bribe from a person. Therefore, invoking conditions of his engagement, his contractual engagement has been terminated.
I have considered the submissions of the parties and the relevant materials on record. Petitioner cannot be said to enjoy status of civil servant under Articles 309 to 311 of the Constitution of India as his engagement was on contractual basis. Moreover, he was only a trainee. Therefore, there was no requirement of departmental proceeding against him. Petitioner's terms of engagement also provided that in case of unsatisfactory service his contract can be terminated at any time. If he has been found taking bribe and faced incarceration as also implication in vigilance case, the respondents cannot be said to have committed any illegality in invoking the terms of contract in terminating his engagement by the impugned order. Therefore, no case for interference is made out in the instant matter.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/