Allowed

Kapil Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2018SPLA/646/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appellant challenged the dismissal of his writ petition seeking restoration of his terminated Mid Day Meal Scheme contract due to lack of natural justice. The court distinguished the case from a Supreme Court precedent regarding ad-hoc appointments, holding that a contractual relationship allows termination on grounds of misconduct without restoration, though the previous cost award was sa

What did the court decide?

Special Appeal dismissed but the cost of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the appellant by the Single Bench is set aside.

Kapil Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 646 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Kapil Kumar Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Mohan Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

This appeal is before us to question correctness of the judgment dated 10.07.2018 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ-A No. 13760 of 2018.

¶6

By the judgment impugned, learned Single Bench dismissed the petition for writ with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

¶7

In brief, facts of the case are that the appellant-petitioner was engaged as District Coordinator in Mid Day Meal Scheme in the year 2011 purely on contractual basis. His service contract was extended time to time by the competent Authorities, however, the same was terminated under an order dated 03.04.2018. Being aggrieved by the termination of service contract, the petition for writ was preferred.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the service contract has been terminated by the respondents without adhering the principles of natural justice as much as that not even a show cause notice was given before taking the action impugned. It is further submitted that the foundation to terminate service contract is an alleged misconduct and, as such, the same is stigmatic, hence, that could have not been terminated without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

¶9

We do not find any merit in this appeal.

¶10

It appears that one Sri Om Prakash Pateria, Headmaster of the School where Mid Day Meal Scheme was applicable committed suicide and while doing do, he also made a suicidal note. In the note, he alleged that the appellant is a corrupt person and he demanded money from him and also got the payment of his salary stopped. The appellant is facing a criminal trial for that. It is further

¶11

stated that a criminal case too has been registered against him for alleged commission of an offence under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondents terminated the service contract looking to these eventualities. As already stated, the appellant-petitioner was working on contractual basis and, therefore, if the other party of contract is not satisfied by the services given as a consequence to service contract then such contract may be terminated by adhering the conditions accepted by both the parties. If there is any violation of any term of contract then the appropriate course is to claim damages and not restoration of service contract.

¶12

Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdul Kadir and another Versus Director General of Police, Assam and others reported in (2009) 6 SCC 611 .

¶13

The judgment aforesaid is having no application in the case in hand. In the case of Mohd. Abdul Kadir and another (supra) , appointment was given in the scheme on adhoc basis whereas in the case in hand the appellant-petitioner was rendering services as a consequence of a service contract. Merely on the count that payment in both the cases was allowed on consolidated basis, the nature of service cannot be treated the same.

¶14

In view of whatever stated above, we find no merit in this appeal.

¶15

The appeal is dismissed. However, the cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed upon the appellant-petitioner by learned Single Bench is set-aside. Order Date :- 20.7.2018 Shubham

¶16

(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, J.)

Kapil Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ganga Construction Co. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Padam Constructions Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Om Bricks Field Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ved Prakash Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Yadav and 27 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Peetam Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others