Service Law – Service on contract basis – Non-extension of contract – Appellant was appointed by the Respondent No.4 to the post of Assistant Project Coordinator (APC) under the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) on contract basis – By an order dated 30.03.2013, the respondent no.4 decided not to extend the contract of the appellant – Appellant contended that the order dated 30.03.2013 was stigmatic in nature and could not have been passed without giving her an opportunity of being heard – The Single Judge of the High Court quashed the order dated 30.03.2013, holding that the termination orders being stigmatic in nature, relating to alleged misconduct involving moral turpitude, the same could not have been passed without holding a regular enquiry – However, the Division Bench of the High Court decided in favour of the respondents – Correctness:
Held: While serving as such, complaint(s) against her, in brief, were that she was not performing her duties, primarily on two counts – (i) Not punctual in attending to her duties, and; (ii) Not correctly reported with regard to the events in the hostel – As borne out from the record, with regard to the hostel, charge was given to her for only 5/6 days – As such, it cannot be said that within such a short period, the appellant, without fully understanding the attendant issues, could have straightaway given any opinion/report on the hostel – Clause 4 of the RGPSM’s General Service Conditions lays down that ordinarily, for inefficiency, one month’s notice is sufficient – The Clause also makes it clear that if someone is found to have indulged in “undesirable activities”, the Mission Director was competent to terminate such person’s services “with immediate effect” – Respondents have placed themselves in a Catch-22 situation – If the order dated 30.03.2013 falls within the former part of Clause 4, as contended by the respondent, on the premise that it is a case of termination simpliciter and non-stigmatic, then one month’s notice was required to be issued to the appellant, which admittedly was not done in the instant matter – Arguendo, were the order dated 30.03.2013 to be seen as falling under the latter part of Clause 4, it would be stigmatic, as made clear by the use of the words “indulged in undesirable activities amounting to degradation of dignity of Mission” – In view of the dictum laid down in Parshotam Lal Dhingra case, it is clear that the Respondents did not comply with Clause 4-either the first part or the second part thereof – The order dated 30.03.2013 does visit the appellant with evil consequences and would create hurdles for her further employment – Therefore, the impugned Judgment is quashed and set aside. [Paras 30, 32, 36]
Service Law – Non-extension of contract – Non-mention of of the background situation or the Show Cause Notice (SCN) in the order:
Held: The mere non-mention of the background situation or the SCNs in the order dated 30.03.2013 cannot, by itself, be determinative of the nature of the order – It is settled that the form of an order is not its final determinant and the Court can find out the real reason and true character behind terminating/removing an employee – In the instant case, the impugned judgment also does not deal with Clause 4 of RGPSM’s General Service Conditions. [Para 33]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.