AKHTAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS.
Click here to view full judgement.
Satish K.Agnihotri, J. -
(1.)THE petitioner, in this petition impugns the order/notice dated 20.08.2007 (Annexure P/4), whereby after holding the petitioner as guilty of several charges, a notice was issued and order dated 24.11.2007 (Annexure P/6) whereby the services of the petitioner was terminated without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the enquiry.
(2.)THE indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed as Project Officer on 29.06.2006 (Annexure P/1) on contract basis for a period of one year. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner was extended further for a period upto 31st December, 2007. In the meantime, the petitioner was served with a show -cause -notice dated 20.08.2007 (Annexure P/4) holding the petitioner as guilty for having committed serious financial irregularities in purchase of various articles. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner filed his reply (Annexure P/5). Having considered his reply, the respondent No. 2 recorded that the reply was not satisfactory. Thus, the services of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 24.11.2007 (Annexure P/6).
(3.)SHRI Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner was upto 31st December, 2007 but the petitioner was removed on the basis of certain serious allegations levelled against him, without holding proper enquiry. The alleged enquiry was held at the back of him and show -cause -notice was issued after finding him guilty of the alleged charges. The petitioner did not have opportunity to put forward his case with regard to the allegations levelled against him as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him in the enquiry, wherein he was found guilty. 4. Shri Dubey further submits that the impugned order is a stigmatic order and has caused prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter applied for appointment on the post of Project Officer, pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.09.2007. He was not considered on the ground of the stigmatic order dated 24.11.2007 (Annexure P/6).
Shri Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents, per contra, submits that the order was not a punitive order and it was termination simplicitor. The petitioner was given opportunity to explain after he was found guilty in the preliminary enquiry. It is admitted that no notice was given to put forward his case in the enquiry which held him guilty of all the charges levelled against him. Shri Thakur further submits that even otherwise, term of the petitioner has come to an end as this was a contract appointment.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.