Meghalaya High Court
Shri Rimbarco M Marak vs State Of Meghalaya on 15 December, 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 35 of 2015
Shri Rramberco M.Marak
S/o Shri. Oppilson T. Samgma
R/o Chitoktak, Tura
Dist:- West Garo Hills,
Meghalaya
... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. State of Meghalaya Represented by
the Commissioner & Secretary, to
the Government of Meghalaya,
Education department Meghalaya,
Shillong.
2. The Director of Mass and Elementary
Education Meghalaya, Shillong.
3. Deputy Commissioner and Chairman,
MDM West Garo Hills, Tura, Meghalaya.
4. The Sub- Divisional School Education Officer
West Garo Hills, Meghalaya.
... Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH
Present
Mr. P.T. Sangma ... Counsel for Petitioner
Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee ... Counsel for Respondents
Date of Hearing ... 15.12.2016
Date of Order ... 15.12.2016
JUDGEMENT
BY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P. VAISH (ORAL) The present petition is directed against the respondents for quashing the impugned order dated 23rd February, 2015 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner also prays for releasing his salary for the months of November, December, 2014 WP(C) No. 35 of 2015 Page 1 of 7 and January, February, 2015 besides he also seeks reinstatement in service.
2. Briefly recapitulating the facts as stated in the petition are that the Deputy Inspector of Schools vide Memo dated 20th July 2010 invited applications for appointment to the post of Data Entry Operator Cum-Office Assistant in the office of the Deputy Inspector of School with a fixed monthly honorarium of Rs. 10,000/- . The petitioner applied for the said post and participated in the interview.
3. The petitioner was duly selected for appointment to the said post of Data Entry Operator Cum-Office Assistant. It is stated that the petitioner had been working sincerely and faithfully with the full satisfaction of the higher authorities. The petitioner never failed to perform his duties and always regular in attending the office.
4. It is further stated by the petitioner that there was no complaint or adverse remarks against the petitioner and he worked dedicatedly.
5. It is also stated that on 18th, 19th and 20th February, 2015 the petitioner was infected with high fever and cough/tonsil and he could not attend the office for three days and he also could not inform the respondent No. 4.
6. It is further stated that on 24th February, 2015 the petitioner had prepared the leave application alongwith the Doctor's prescription requesting the concerned department to allow him to take a leave and rest for two days i.e. 24th and 25th February, 2015 as he was not feeling well and suffering from sickness. However, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide Memo. dated 23rd February, 2015 by the Deputy Commissioner & Chairman, MDM, West Garo Hills, Tura.
WP(C) No. 35 of 2015 Page 2 of 7
7. The petitioner has also stated that he was terminated before he could submit his leave application and without giving an opportunity to explain the reason why he was absent for three days. The petitioner alleged the action of the respondents totally illegal and not sustainable as per law.
8. It is also stated that the respondents had not released his salary for the period of four months i.e. November, December, 2014 and January, February, 2015. It is further stated that the petitioner was continuously working with the respondents till 18th February, 2015 but on 24th February, 2015 the petitioner was issued termination letter without issuing any show cause notice.
9. The respondents have opposed the petition by filing counter affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner was irregular in his duties. It is also stated that the petitioner did not submit any application for leave to the respondents and copy of the leave application and medical certificate was received by the respondents along with a copy of the writ petition.
10. It is also stated by the respondents that show cause notices were issued earlier twice to the petitioner on 7th October, 2013 and on 9th December, 2014 as he was found irregular and indiscipline.
11. On the allegations of the petitioner for not releasing his salary for four months, it is stated by the respondents that on 26th February, 2015 two cheques were made for release of petitioner's salary for the months of November and December, 2014 for a sum of Rs. 12,000/- each. The said cheques were sent through office peon to the residence of the petitioner, however, he refused to accept the same but subsequently he received the cheques on 2nd April 2015. In so far with the salary for the month of January and February, 2015 are WP(C) No. 35 of 2015 Page 3 of 7 concerned, the same was not release due to non-receipt of MDM Scheme sanction for the year 2015.
12. It is further stated by the respondents that the attendance register is maintained in the office and the petitioner never bothered to sign in the attendance register and he was found absent most of the time without informing the authority and irregular in attending office. The respondents did not find the conduct of the petitioner satisfactory.
13. It is further stated that as per the terms and conditions of appointment for Data Entry Operator Cum-Office Assistant, MDM, the employee can be summarily discharged from his job due to unsatisfactory performance and misconduct.
14. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and carefully perused material available on record.
15. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that salary of the petitioner for the month of November, December, 2014 and January, February, 2015 has been released to the petitioner after filing of present petition.
16. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner was purely contractual and temporarily. The terms and conditions for appointment of Data Entry Operator-Cum-Office Assistant in the office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools dated 28th July, 2010, inter-alia, provides as under:
"1) That the appointment is purely contractual and temporary.
2) That the post is likely to be abolished as and when Govt. of India stops providing funds under MME for the purpose of hiring the services of MIS- Coordinator and Data Entry Operator-Cum- Office Assistant.
3) That appointee is liable to be summarily discharged from this job due to unsatisfactory performance and misconduct of any kind.
4) ............."WP(C) No. 35 of 2015 Page 4 of 7
17. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide letter dated 23rd February, 2015. The said letter reads as under:
"NO. PA/END/3/2008/Pt-III/31, Dated Tura, the 23rd February, 2015 To , Shri Ramberco M.Marak Data entry cum Office Asstt.
O/O the Sub-Divisional School Education Officer, Tura West Garo Hills.
Subject:- Letter of termination.
In pursuance of information received from sub- Divisional School Education Officer, Tura West Garo Hills you are found absent most of the time without information to the authority and irregular in attending office duty which cause great inconvenience for dealing of day to day matters of MDM in the office of the Sub-Divisional School Education Officer, Tura and the general public.
Whereas, your conduct amounts to willful negligence of official duties and unbecoming of a public servant yours services as Data Entry cum Office Assistant in the office of the SDSEO,Tura is hereby terminated with immediate effect.
(Pravin Bakshi) Deputy Commissioner & Chairman, MDM, West Garo Hills, Tura"
18. A perusal of the termination letter reveals that the petitioner was found absent most of the time without information to the authorities and he was irregular in attending office duty thereby causing inconvenience to the authorities. A perusal of the record shows that show cause notices were earlier also issued to the petitioner on 7th October, 2013 and on 9th December, 2014 for absenting himself without information.
19. An order dated 7th October, 2013 is also placed on record which shows that the attendance of the petitioner was very irregular and most often he was absent without information. The petitioner was directed to attend office regularly and in time. This shows that the conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory and he was irregular in attending the office.
WP(C) No. 35 of 2015 Page 5 of 7
20. Admittedly, an employee appointed on temporary basis is not governed by any service Rules and he is bound by the terms and conditions incorporated in the appointment letter. It is a settled legal proposition that a person, whose appointment is purely contractual and temporary with the conditions stipulated in terms and conditions of his appointment that he can be summarily discharged due to unsatisfactory performance and misconduct of any kind, does not have a right to claim any relief, if his services are terminated in terms thereof.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER vs KAUSHAL KISHORE SHUKLA' (1991) 1 SCC 691 has categorically held as under:
"6......Under the service jurisprudence a temporary employee has no right to hold the post and his services are liable to be terminated in accordance with the relevant service rules and the terms of contract of service....."
22. It is a settled law that a temporary employee has not right to hold the post as his services are liable to be terminated without assigning any reason either in terms of the contract providing for such termination or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary servants. A similar question came up for consideration in the case of 'RAVINDRA KUMAR MISRA vs U.P. STATE HANDLOOM CORPORATION' AIR 1987 SC 2408; 'TRIVENI SHANKAR SAXENA vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS' AIR 1992 SC 496; 'COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, LUCKNOW, U.P AND ANOTHER vs PRAKASH CHANDRA SAXENA AND ANOTHER, (1994) 5 SCC 177; 'RAM CHANDRA TRIPATHI vs U.P PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL IV AND OTHERS, (1994) 5 SCC 180 and 'MADHYA PRADESH HASTA SHILPA VIKAS NIGAM LTD vs WP(C) No. 35 of 2015 Page 6 of 7 DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS' (1995) 1 SCC 638 and 'KAUSHAL KISHORE SHUKLA' (supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that incumbent to a post who has been given appointment on temporary basis, terminable without notice has no right to hold the post and he is not entitled for any opportunity of hearing before his services are dispensed with as his termination does not amount to forfeiture of any legal right.
22. In the instant case, the appointment of the petitioner being purely contractual and temporary can be terminated by the respondents on unsatisfactory performance and misconduct.
23. Having regard the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the settled legal position as set out in the judgments referred to herein above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner.
24. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, the petition is without any merit, the same deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.
25. No order as to cost.
MC(WPC) No. 32 of 2015
The application is dismissed being infructuous.
JUDGE
Dated, the 15th December, 2016
V. Lyndem
WP(C) No. 35 of 2015 Page 7 of 7