Madhya Pradesh High Court
Piyush Kumar Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63841
1 W.P. No.31548/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 12th OF DECEMBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 31548 of 2023
PIYUSH KUMAR TRIPATHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
............................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri S.D. Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Arnav Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
............................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 23/06/2023
passed by respondent No.4 whereby services of the petitioner have been
terminated treating him to be absent from duty.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Data Entry
Operator through outsource agency vide letter dated 23/01/2014
engaged by Prasad Contractor and Fabricators in pursuance to the
agreement dated 21/05/2013 issued by the Directorate of Krishi Kalyan
and Krishi Vikas. He submitted his joining in the office of respondent
No.6 on 24/01/2014. He performed his duty from 24/01/2014 and
training was conducted from 19/08/2014 to 28/08/2014. It was pointed
out that contract of outsource agency was completed, therefore it was
directed by respondent No.2 that services of Data Entry Operator may
not be continued and they may not be paid the dues. It is argued that
respondent No.4 has orally directed the petitioner to perform his duty as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 27-12-2024
11:30:48
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63841
2 W.P. No.31548/2023
Data Entry Operator in his office and the payment will be made at
Collector rate. Petitioner has performed his duties regularly and the
payment for his work on collector rate was paid up to July, 2020.
Respondent No.4 has made recommendation by order dated 22/09/2017
before the Joint Director for regularization of petitioner’s services who
subsequently by letter dated 30/10/2017 had directed to prepare a list in
the light of Policy dated 07/10/2016 issued by General Administration
Department for regularization of services of daily rated employees.
Respondent No.4 has also recommended for regularization of petitioner
services for the post of Technical Assistant being satisfied with the
working of the petitioner. Thereafter, vide order dated 16/08/2020, his
services have been orally terminated without assigning any reason. Even
no termination order has been issued to the petitioner.
3. Petitioner has approached the respondents No.4 & 5 on number of
occasions but they have not considered his case and not permitted to
perform his duties. They have orally given assurance that after expiry of
COVID-19 Pandemic, he will be reinstated. It is argued that if a person
has been appointed on a vacant post as daily wager and perform his duty
without any adverse remark, then such person is entitled for
regularization on the said post. It is further submitted that earlier,
petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P. No.7086/2021 which
was disposed of directing the respondents to pass an order of
termination in writing if they do not want to take services of the
petitioner because oral termination cannot be said to be a termination in
the eyes of law. Thereafter, petitioner submitted his joining on
02/08/2021 in the Department. Thereafter letter dated 02/09/2021 has
been issued pointing out the fact that petitioner himself absented from
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 27-12-2024
11:30:48
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63841
3 W.P. No.31548/2023
the duty, therefore Office work was affected and the conduct of
petitioner was not good. It is also pointed out that petitioner was
working in Government Girls College Rewa which goes to show that he
was gainfully employed. It is pointed out by the petitioner that his
services have been orally terminated, therefore for his survival he is
carrying out labour work. Petitioner vide letter dated 10/09/2021 was
informed that as regular Data Entry Operator has been appointed and he
has no additional work in this Office, therefore he cannot be
accommodated.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition is being filed asking for
reinstatement in service with a further request to pay his 14 months
salary / wages amounting to Rs.1,68,640/-. He has also preferred Conc.
No.2407/2021, wherein notices have been issued in which compliance
report dated 23/06/2023 has been filed by the Authorities mentioning
that petitioner’s services have been terminated and his representation
has been rejected as far as backwages are concerned on the ground that
petitioner has not performed his duties. The Contempt Petition filed was
disposed of granting liberty to assail the impugned order, therefore this
petition is being filed.
5. On notice being issued, reply has been filed by the Authorities
pointing out the fact that petitioner’s initial induction in service was
through outsource agency vide letter dated 23/01/2014. He was engaged
by Prasad contractor and fabricators in pursuance to the agreement dated
21/05/2013 issued by Directorate Krishi Kalyan and Krishi Vikas. The
contract agreement was completed, therefore it was ordered that services
of Data Entry Operator may not be continued. On earlier occasion,
petitioner preferred W.P. No.13203/2018 which was disposed of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 27-12-2024
11:30:48
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63841
4 W.P. No.31548/2023
seeking direction to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance
with the Government Policy. He again preferred W.P. No.7086/2021
which was disposed of directing the Authorities to communicate
termination order in writing. Thereafter, respondent No.4 issued a letter
to petitioner pointing out the fact that petitioner remained absent from
duty, therefore office work was affected. Moreover the conduct of
petitioner was not good. The petitioner was serving somewhere else in
Government Girls College Rewa adversely affecting the work of
respondents Department coupled with the fact that regular Data Entry
Operation has been appointed in the Department. There is no
requirement of petitioner’s induction as a daily rated employee in the
Department. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of this petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The admitted position being that petitioner’s initial induction in
the respondents Department was through an outsource agency i.e.
Prasad Contractor and Fabricators in pursuance to an agreement dated
21/05/2013 executed between Directorate Krishi Kalyan and Krishi
Vikas and Prasad Contractor and Fabricator meaning thereby petitioner
is an employee of Prasad Contractor and Fabricator and petitioner is not
directly connected with the respondents Department. Vide letter dated
24/01/2015, contract of Prasad Contractor and Fabricator was over,
therefore it was observed that not to take any further services of Data
Entry Operator engaged through outsource agency.
8. It is the case of petitioner that despite contract came to an end,
respondent No.4 asked the petitioner to perform duties on the post of
Data Entry Operator. In pursuance to which, he will be paid at collector
rate. Petitioner continued to work up to July, 2020. Recommendations
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 27-12-2024
11:30:48
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63841
5 W.P. No.31548/2023
for regularization of petitioner’s services were made by Joint Director as
well as to extend him the benefit in terms of Policy dated 07/10/2016.
Respondent No.4 has also recommended the name of petitioner for
regularization on the post of Technical Assistant being satisfied with the
work of the petitioner. It is argued that petitioner’s services have been
terminated on 16/08/2020 without assigning any reason.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not brought on
record any order issued by the Authorities to substantiate that he was
again inducted in the respondents Department. No appointment order is
brought on record by the petitioner after termination of the contract of
the outsource agency.
10. Letter dated 28/12/2018 has been issued by Deputy Director,
Kisan Kalyan Tatha Krishi Vikas, Rewa pointing out as under:-
Øa- vH;FkhZ dk uke "kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk vuqHko
1 Jh fi;w'k frokjh B.COM, DCA eSllZ izlkn dkUVªsDVj Hkksiky
ds v/khu fnukad 24-01-2014 ls
MkVkbaVªh vkWijsVj dk dk;Z
foHkkx esa dj jgs FksA eSllZ
izlkn dkUVªsDVj Hkksiky ds dk;Z
ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus ds I"pkr
v/kksgLrk{kjh dk;kZy; esa
dk;kZf/kD; gksus ds dkj.k
nSfud ikfjJfed ij dEI;wVj
vkWijsVj dk dk;Z dj jgs gS]
budk dk;kZuqHko mRre gS]
bZ&d`f'k ;a= vuqnku iksVZy
fØ;kUo;u ds fy;s rduhdh
lgk;d ds p;u gsrq vuq"kalk
dh tkrh gS
11. From the perusal of aforesaid, it is apparently clear that petitioner
is continuously working in the respondents Department since
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 27-12-2024
11:30:48
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63841
6 W.P. No.31548/2023
24/01/2014 and even after termination of contract of Prasad Contractor,
petitioner was continued. A recommendation for his regularization was
made by the Deputy Director in said letter which goes to show that
petitioner was working in the Department as on 28/12/2018. Experience
certificate, Annexure-P/7, dated 06/06/2019 has been issued by the
Assistant Director, Kisan Kalyan Tatha Krishi Vikas, Rewa to the
petitioner which again goes to substantiate the argument regarding
working of the petitioner. Petitioner time and again has approached the
Authorities for regularization of his services but of no consequence. The
Authorities in pursuance to the order passed in W.P. No.7086/2021
dated 29/07/2021 has considered the case of the petitioner and decided
the representation pointing out the fact that petitioner after August, 2020
all of a sudden stopped to come to the office. Now vide letter dated
10/09/2021, petitioner has been informed that on appointment of regular
Data Entry Operator in the Department, there is no requirement of Data
Entry Operator being appointed on daily rated basis. From perusal of
aforesaid, it is apparently clear that petitioner has performed his duties
up to August, 2020 in the respondents Department. There is no dispute
with respect to aforesaid as the respondents themselves have admitted
the aforesaid fact, which is clearly reflected from letter dated
02/09/2021. There is virtually no termination order issued to the
petitioner. The relevant extract of letter which has been issued informing
that the petitioner’s services are no more required reads as under:-
“vkidk vkosnu i= fnukad fuy vkod dekad 1334
fnukad 06-09-2021 ls çkIr gqvk ftlds lEca/k esa ys[k gS fd
vkids }kjk dk;kZy;hu i= Øekad 1107 fnukad 02-09-2021
ds vafre iSjk ds lEca/k esa Hkzked fjFkfr crk;k x;k gSA
tcfd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ifjr fu.kZ; ds
ifjikyu esa vkidks oLrq fLFkfr ls voxr djkrs gq, lwfpr
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 27-12-2024
11:30:48
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:638417 W.P. No.31548/2023
fd;k x;k gSA
vr% Li”V fd;k tkrk gS fd vkidk vkpj.k ,oa dk;Z
O;ogkj vPNk ugha gksus rFkk LosPNk iwoZd dk;Z ls yach
vof/k ij vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k dk;kZy;hu dk;Z
O;oLFkk v/khuLFk fu;fer dk;kZy;hu deZpkfj;ksa ls dj
fy;k x;k gS orZeku esa vfrfjDr dEI;wVj dk;Z ugha gSA”
12. From perusal of language which has been used, it appears to be a
stigmatic in nature. It is levying allegation against the petitioner
regarding his working who is in unauthorized absence and his
behaviour. Petitioner could not be terminated based upon such
allegations without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
13. It is an admitted position that no show cause notice has been
issued to the petitioner prior to dispensing him from the services.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj vs.
Union of India (2001) 9 SCC 180 has held as under:-
“If the charges are factual and if they are denied by
the delinquent employee, an inquiry should also be
called for. This is a minimum requirement of
principal of natural justice and the said requirement
cannot be dispensed with”
15. If the aforesaid settled propositions of law are applied to the facts
and circumstances of the present case, then it is clear that the Authorities
prior to dispensing with the services of petitioner should have issued a
show cause notice following the principle of natural justice and fair play
and should have followed the principle of audi alteram partem by
respondents.
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates
Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed, reported in (2010) 9
SCC 496 as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 27-12-2024
11:30:48
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63841
8 W.P. No.31548/2023
“47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court
holds:-
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to
record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if
such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in
support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to
serve the wider principle of justice that justice must
not only be done it must also appear to be done as
well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a
valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of
judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative
power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been
exercised by the decision maker on relevant
grounds and by disregarding extraneous
considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a
component of a decision making process as
observing principles of natural justice by judicial,
quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review
by superior Courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries
committed to rule of law and constitutional
governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based
on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of
judicial decision making justifying the principle
that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these
days can be as different as the judges and authorities
who deliver them. All these decisions serve one
common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason
that the relevant factors have been objectively
considered. This is important for sustaining the
litigants’ faith in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both
judicial accountability and transparency.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 27-12-2024
11:30:48
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63841
9 W.P. No.31548/2023
(k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not
candid enough about his/her decision making
process then it is impossible to know whether the
person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of
precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent,
clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-
stamp reasons’ is not to be equated with a valid
decision making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine
qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers.
Transparency in decision making not only makes the
judges and decision makers less prone to errors but
also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See
David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987)
100 Harward Law Review 731-737).
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons
emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in
decision making, the said requirement is now
virtually a component of human rights and was
considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See
(1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs.
University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein
the Court referred to Article 6 of European
Convention of Human Rights which requires,
“adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for
judicial decisions”.
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a
vital role in setting up precedents for the future.
Therefore, for development of law, requirement of
giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and
is virtually a part of “Due Process”.
17. Even the quasi judicial Authorities are required to assign the
reasons while passing orders.
18. Considering the reasons which are assigned being stigmatic in
nature coupled with the fact that no opportunity to substantiate or
explain the said allegations was given to the petitioner, the oral
termination order as well as the letter dated 10/09/2021 are
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 27-12-2024
11:30:48
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63841
10 W.P. No.31548/2023
unsustainable. They are hereby quashed.
19. The Authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith.
However, they are at liberty to pass an order of termination of the
petitioner after following principle of natural justice and fair play. As far
as 14 months salary/ wages is concerned, the Authorities are directed to
consider the case of the petitioner for grant of wages and after granting
opportunity of hearing to substantiate that he had actually performed the
work during aforesaid period, and take final decision with respect to
wages paid to the petitioner. The exercise for payment of wages be
completed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
20. With aforesaid observations, petition stands finally disposed of.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Shbhnkr
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 27-12-2024
11:30:48