AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State.
The engagement of the appellants as Kisan Salahkars came to be terminated vide order dated 10th of July, 2016 communicated by the District
Agriculture Officer, Vaishali upon the approval of the District Magistrate.
The contention of the learned counsel is that the termination has resulted on account of the lodging of an F.I.R. on the basis of a report which does not
contain any material. A copy of the information, which refers to an enquiry having been conducted and having been made the basis for lodging an
F.I.R. dated 26.05.2016, is on record. The same alleges that with the connivance of certain officials as well as the appellants and other similarly
situate persons, several crores of Government funds have been diverted and misappropriated.
It is undisputed that an F.I.R. has been lodged. There is nothing on record to indicate as to what has been the outcome of the investigation or even
filing of the police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. The fact, however, remains that the services of the appellants and their engagement as
Kisan Salahkars, which was on contractual basis, has been dispensed with. There are guidelines framed for the engagement of Kisan Salahkars as
well as separate guidelines of selection. The guidelines have been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition whereas the guidelines of selection have
been filed by the respondents as Annexue-C to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel urges that the impugned order having been passed by the
District Agriculture Officer is without authority in law inasmuch as it is only the District Magistrate, who could have passed the orders.
We have perused Clause-11 of the Guidelines and Clause-17 of the Selection Guidelines which are extracted hereinunder :-
“11. / -
।
।
।
( ) ।:-
·
।
· ।
· ।
·
।
।
· ।
· 15 ।
· ।
· , ।â€
…………...………….
“17- ।
,
- , ,
,
।â€
A perusal thereof would demonstrate that the contractual services can be terminated in the event they are found to be unsatisfactory and the selection
guidelines in Clause-15 further provide that the contractual services are not equal to the status of a Government service. The engagement is on
honorarium basis and for a particular contractual year. It appears that on having received information of the alleged misappropriation of funds, the first
information report had been lodged. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the reason for taking such a step cannot be said to be arbitrary
inasmuch as involvement in a criminal case of financial irregularity resulting in a substantial financial indiscipline involving crores of rupees cannot be
said to be something which is insignificant for the purpose of taking such a drastic action.
Since we are not aware of the outcome of the criminal investigation and the learned counsel for the appellants prays that the appellants may be
permitted to pursue their remedy of appeal as per Clause-18 of the Selection Guidelines before the Divisional Joint Director, we provide that in the
event the appellants choose to prefer an appeal within ten days from today, the appeal shall be disposed of on its own merits, without being influenced
by the observations made by the learned Single Judge.
Appeal stands disposed of.