Gopal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging impugned orders dated 09.11.2013, 02.04.2024, 16.07.2019 and 28.07.2023.

By order dated 09.11.2013, petitioner, who was appointed as Gram Rojgar Sahayak was removed from his post in accordance with letter No. 2466/13 received from Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ashta. Petitioner preferred an appeal before Collector against order dated 09.11.2013. Collector considered appeal and held that in Clause 16(1) of instructions issued by Madhya Pradesh Rajya Rojgar Guarantee Parishad, there is specific mention that if an employee is incarcerated in jail for more than 48 hours on registration of named FIR against him, then contract employment can be terminated. Collector held that petitioner admitted that criminal case was registered against him in Police Station Javar and he was removed from service by order dated 09.11.2013. Order of Collector was challenged in revision before Commissioner on grounds that he was confined to custody for more than 48 hours. On conspiracy, false case was registered against him. No opportunity of hearing was given to him before passing of impugned order. It was mentioned that petitioner was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 53/2014 by judgment dated 25.09.2017 giving benefit of doubt. Commissioner dismissed revision on grounds that petitioner was under fear of arrest therefore, without informing Gram Panchayat, he remained absent. Petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from duty without information. It was held that Gram Rojgar Sahayak failed in its duty and responsibility and order passed by appellate authority was confirmed.

Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that proper opportunity of hearing was not provided to petitioner in accordance with law. Removal of petitioner without hearing him was bad in law. Petitioner has also been acquitted in criminal case by judicial order. In these circumstances, impugned orders be set aside and petitioner be allowed to continued as Gram Rojgar Sahayak.

Government Advocate appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4/State as well as counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submitted that action was taken against petitioner as he was unauthorizedly absent from duty. Clause 16(1) of direction lays down that if criminal case is registered against Gram Rojgar Sahayak during service period, then he can be removed. There is no requirement for giving opportunity of hearing to the employee. Petitioner has rightly been terminated from service. If there is violation of terms and conditions of appointment order, then authorities have right to remove him from service. Authorities have taken decision in accordance with law and no illegality or irregularity is found in the same. In view of same, writ petition filed by petitioner be dismissed.

Heard the counsel for the parties.

Petitioner was appointed as Gram Rojgar Sahayak vide order dated 13.12.2012. He was removed from service vide order dated 09.11.2013 on the ground that criminal case registered against him. No opportunity of hearing was given before passing the removal order. Criminal case was registered against petitioner under Sections 294, 353, 323, 34 and 506-II of IPC and he has been acquitted in criminal case giving benefit of doubt. In guidelines for appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak dated 02.06.2012, under Clause 18(15), it is mentioned that if the person appointed, is found involved in criminal offences, appointing authority after giving him opportunity of hearing can terminate the contract appointment. Similar condition is also mentioned in his appointment order. Clause 18(15) states as under :

Removal order was passed under Clause 16(1) of Guideline dated 02.06.2012. Clause 16(1) reads as under :

Contention of the respondents that the opportunity of hearing is not required before passing order of termination cannot be accepted. Under Clause 16(1) it is only mentioned that contract of Gram Rojgar Sahayak can be terminated before completion of contract period in special circumstances. Clause 16 does not give opportunity of hearing before passing order of termination. In Clause 18(15), it is specifically mentioned that before passing termination order, opportunity of hearing is to be given if petitioner is found involved in criminal offences.

It is also contended by respondents that petitioner remained absent without information therefore, his service was automatically terminated. In paragraph 6 of appointment order and Clause 18(6) of guideline dated 02.06.2012, it is mentioned that if a contract employee remains absent without authorization for a period of more than one month, then his service stand terminated automatically. Clause 18(6) of guideline lays down as under:

On going through order passed by Collector, it is found that petitioner was absent from 30.10.2013 and termination order was passed on 09.11.2013. Petitioner was not absent from duty for a period of more than 30 days without information.

Clause 16(1) and 18(6) of directions issued by Rojgar Guarantee Parishad for termination of service without giving opportunity of hearing to a Gram Rojgar Sahayak violates fundamental rights. In view of same, impugned orders dated 09.11.2013, 02.04.2024, 16.07.2019 and 28.07.2023 are hereby quashed and it is directed that before taking any action against Gram Rojgar Sahayak under Clause 16(1), show cause notice be issued to him, reply be received and thereafter, proper order be passed regarding contention or removal from service. Similarly, before passing any order under Clause 18(6), show cause notice shall be issued to Gram Rojgar Sahayak asking for reasons of absence. After receiving reply and considering circumstances, proper order be passed regarding contention or removal from service of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. Respondents are directed to issue show cause notice and thereafter consider the reply of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. Reinstatement or removal of Gram Rojgar Sahayak shall be subject to fresh orders, which will be passed by competent authority.

With aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed off.