Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Mani Tripathi vs State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Gram ... on 11 April, 2023
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 17 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19029 of 2020 Petitioner :- Rakesh Mani Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Gram Vikas Adhikari Secy.And Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Prasad Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Prasad Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Rahul Singh, learned Standing Counsel.
2. This is the second writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.9.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Balrampur, whereby the petitioner's contractual appointment on the post of Technical Assistant, MNREGA, Block Haraiya Satgharwa, District Balrampur has been cancelled.
3. The petitioner was appointed on contract basis @Rs.4000/- per month on the post of Technical Assistant vide order dated 25.9.2010 issued by the Chief Development Officer, Balrampur. The initial appointment was for a period of one year. The honorarium was to be paid finding the services of the petitioner satisfactory. If the petitioner's services were not satisfactory, he could have been removed by giving him one month's notice. It was also said that if some kind of dispute arises in respect of the performance of the duties of the petitioner, the same would be finally settled by the District Magistrate.
4. Initially, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 23.7.2018 asking for his explanation regarding his performance and conduct in the meeting dated 22.7.2018 and his behaviour with the senior officers, including the Chief Development Officer. After considering his reply, the petitioner?s contractual employment was cancelled vide order dated 19.9.2018.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.30682(SS) of 2018 before this Court, and this Court vide order dated 11.7.2019 directed the District Magistrate, Balrampur to consider the case of the petitioner and his reply and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. It was provided that till the decision was taken by the District Magistrate, the order dated 19.9.2018 terminating the petitioner's employment on contract basis to be kept in abeyance. It was also said the order dated 19.9.2018 would be subject to the final decision by the District Magistrate in compliance of the order dated 11.7.2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.30682(SS) of 2018.
6. The District Magistrate, thereafter, constituted a two member committee vide order dated 6.8.2019 to inquire into the allegations against the petitioner and consider his reply. It is noted in the impugned order dated 27.9.2019 that a meeting was called by the Chief Development Officer, Balrampur on 22.7.2018. In the said meeting, it was said that in respect of 14 Gram Panchayats allotted to the petitioner, in one Gram Panchayat Trikaulia, zero Manav Diwas and in 8 Gram Panchayats, zero G.O. Tagging were done by the petitioner. When the Chief Development Officer inquired about his work in respect of these short comings, the petitioner spoke in loud voice and threw the file. For this conduct of the petitioner, show cause notice No.880 dated 23.7.2018 was issued to the petitioner asking for his reply to the show cause notice. However, the petitioner did not file his reply on time to the said two notices dated 16.8.2018 and 23.8.2018 and he filed representation before the District Magistrate directly. The two member committee reached to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty for his misconduct in the meeting dated 22.7.2018 as he misbehaved with his senior officer and he did not follow the instructions and also did not give reply to the show cause notice.
7. The District Magistrate in the impugned order noted the provisions of clauses 9, 10,11 and 12 of the contract dated 18.9.2010 and held that he agreed with the finding of the two member committee that the petitioner?s conduct in the meeting dated 22.7.2018 was against the provisions of the contract. The petitioner did not give the proper reply to the show cause notice and, therefore, such a person is not entitled to remain in the contractual employment. In view thereof, the petitioner's contractual employment has been cancelled forthwith.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's contractual employment has been cancelled as he spoke in a loud voice in the meeting dated 22.7.2018, which was not appreciated by the Chief Development Officer. In respect of the short comings in the work of the petitioner, he said that the Assistant Programme Officer has found that the petitioner has completed 85% of the work.
9. On the other hand, Sri Rahul Singh, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner's employment is contractual one and in the contract of employment it is provided that the petitioner's services could be terminated by giving him one month?s notice.
10. In the present case, the petitioner misbehaved with the senior officer in the meeting dated 22.7.2018. His performance was also not satisfactory and, therefore, after giving him one month's notice and considering his reply, his services have been terminated.
11. After passing the order dated 11.7.2019 by this Court in Writ Petition No.30682(SS) of 2018, the District Magistrate, Balrampur has constituted a two member committee, which also found that the petitioner's work and conduct were not satisfactory and unbecoming to be remained in the Government employment. The petitioner being a contractual employee, he was expected to conduct himself properly in the meeting dated 22.7.2018. However, the petitioner not only misbehaved himself by raising his voice and throwing his file, but also his work and performance have been found unsatisfactory.
12. In view thereof, I do not find that there is any error in the decision taken by the District Magistrate, Balrampur terminating the contractual employment of the petitioner inasmuch as the two member committee has also found the petitioner's work and conduct were not satisfactory.
13. Thus, the present writ petition being devoid of merit and substance, is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.4.2023 Rao/-