Allowed

Rani S.Gangadhar v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Feb 2022WP(C)/13071/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition by an accredited overseer seeking to quash a termination order due to non-renewal of contract. It held the termination was void for lack of enquiry on alleged misconduct and quashed the order, deeming the petitioner's service continued until March 2022.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner continued in service till 31.03.2022; termination order Ext.P3 quashed; Panchayat may take disciplinary action before that date.

Rani S.Gangadhar Vs the State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 14TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 13071 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

1 RANI S.GANGADHAR AGED 34 YEARS

¶8

W/O. LENJITH, ACCREDITED OVERSEER, MYNAGAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MYNAGAPPALLY P.O, KOLLAM-690 519, RESIDING AT R.S.G. BHAVAN, MUTHUPILAKKADU EAST, PORUVAZHY P.O, KOLLAM-690 520

¶9

BY ADV K.JAGADEESH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶12

2 MYNAGAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MYNAGAPPALLY P.O, KOLLAM-690 519, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

3 THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE, MYNAGAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MYNAGAPPALLY P.O, KOLLAM-690 519, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶14

BY ADV. SMT. REKHA S., SENIOR, GP SRI. M.R.SASITH

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC NO.13071 OF 2021

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 03^rd day of February, 2022

¶20

The writ petitioner was appointed as an accredited overseer under the second respondent Grama Panchayat by Ext.P1, dated 11.11.2015, for a period of one year, for implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Scheme (MGNRES). Her service was extended from time to time. It seems that the term of contract expired in March 2021, which remained not renewed for some time. There is no dispute that the petitioner continued some time thereafter. Ultimately, by Ext.P3 communication dated 24-05-2021, her service was terminated by non renewal of contract of employment. Challenging Ext.P3, the petitioner has approached this Court essentially relying on Ext.P2 Government Order G.O.(Rt.) No.1149/2021/L.S.G.D. dated 15.06.2021.

¶21

By virtue of Ext.P2, the term of contract

¶22

¶23

WPC NO.13071 OF 2021

¶24

employees engaged for implementation of MGNRES which were to expire prior to 31.03.2022 were extended till 31.03.2022.

¶25

Opposing the application, the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat contended that the writ petition has become infructuous in so far as, pursuant to Ext.P4 notification, a new employee has taken charge on 06.07.2021. It was further contended that the petitioner cannot place reliance on Ext.P2, which is dated 15.06.2021 and that came into force after Ext.P3 dated 24.05.2021. It was further contended that the petitioner suppressed the material fact, that show cause notices were issued to her alleging misconduct. It was disclosed by the respondent Panchayat in their counter affidavit. To buttress the argument that on that ground alone the writ petition is liable to be rejected, the learned Counsel placed reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in Prestige Lights Ltd. vs. State Bank of India [2007 (8) SCC 449] . It was further

¶26

¶27

WPC NO.13071 OF 2021

¶28

contended by the learned Counsel that the petitioner has committed mis-conduct for which show cause

¶29

notices were issued and since her replies were not satisfactory, she was terminated from service by Ext.P3.

¶30

Ext.P3 order is definitely prior to Ext.P2. It is also not in dispute that petitioner continued in service till 25.05.2021. The crucial question is whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the benefit of Ext.P2 in the above circumstance and whether the contention of the Panchayat that since Ext.P2 came into existence subsequent to Ext.P3, no reliance can be placed on it. Ext.P2 clearly show that all the employees whose services were to expire prior to 31.03.2022, stood extended till 31.03.2022. It clearly covers all the agreements entered into prior to 31.03.2021 by which the termination period fell within 31.03.2021 and 31.03.2022. Though no retrospective operation is seen mentioned, by implication, Ext.P2 takes in all contracts which

¶31

¶32

WPC NO.13071 OF 2021

¶33

expired even prior to the above notification. Clearly, case of the petitioner though stood terminated by Ext.P3, stands benefited by Ext.P2 in the above circumstances.

¶34

The above contention has to be appreciated in another angle also. Ext.P3 on the face of it seems to be innocuous order of termination due to non renewal of contract of employment. However, Ext.R2(d) minutes of the Panchayat meeting dated 24.05.2021 clearly refers to certain mis-conducts alleged against the petitioner. In the light of the above allegations, it was resolved not to extend the term of the contract. If that is accepted, clearly Ext.P3 is in the nature of a punitive punishment for a mis-conduct. However, the petitioner was not given a show cause notice as to why disciplinary proceedings shall be taken against her. Notices were replied earlier and the Panchayat did not proceed to conduct an enquiry and to establish the mis-conduct alleged against her. No charges were also framed against

¶35

WPC NO.13071 OF 2021

¶36

¶37

her. In the light of the above, Ext.P3 is not legally sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

¶38

Contention of the learned Counsel for the

¶39

Panchayat that since a new employee has taken charge on 06.07.2021, the writ petition has become infructuous, cannot also survive. This is for the reason that the writ petition was filed on 26.06.2021. When the matter came up for admission, by order dated 01.07.2021, this Court directed that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 will be subject to the result of the writ petition. By virtue of the earlier observation, Ext.P3 by itself cannot survive. New employee took charge on 06.07.2021, which is subsequent to the interim order passed by this Court. Hence, Ext.P4 notification and the appointment of the new person stated to be done pursuant to Ext.P4 to

¶40

the extent of accredited overseer (SC) can only be subject to the ultimate result of this writ petition.

¶41

Having considered this, I am inclined to

¶42

allow the writ petition quashing Ext.P3.

¶43

WPC NO.13071 OF 2021

¶44

¶45

Consequently, it will be deemed that the petitioner will continue in service till 31.03.2022. It is made clear that this will not stand in the way of Panchayat from taking disciplinary action, if any, against the petitioner before the above period for proved misconduct. It is made clear that the observations made above with reference to Ext.P4 will apply only in relation to the post notified of accredited overseer (SC).

¶46

The writ petition is allowed to the above extent.

Sd/SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

SKP/03.02

WPC NO.13071 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13071/2021

¶53

PETITIONER'S EXHI EXHIBIT P1	BITS: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 11.11.2015.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE NO.G.O.(RT).NO. 1149/2021/ L.S.G.D., DATED 15.06.2021.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 24.05.2021.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY, DATED 17.06.2021.
RESPONDENTS' EXHI	BITS:
EXHIBIT R2(A)	TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS FILE NO M18.3055/18 DATED 15/10/2020 TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R2(B)	TURE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 28/11/2020 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, KOLLAM TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R2(C)	THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL BODY MEETING OF THE PANCHAYATH BEARING NO.8/1 DATED 24.05.2021.
EXHIBIT R2(D)	TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE GENERAL BODY MEETING OF THE PANCHAYATH BEARING NO.8/2 DATED 24.05.2021.
EXHIBIT R2(E)	TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R2(F)	TRUE COPY OF REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R2(G)	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26/4/2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT IN AN ORDER NO. MGNRES/2019.
EXHIBIT R2(H)	TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 13/5/2020 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.
EXHIBIT R2(I)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT GIVEN BY PERFORMANCE AUDITOR SUPERVISOR TO DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM

¶54

TRUE COPY

¶55

P.A.TO JUDGE

Rani S.Gangadhar v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rani S.Gangadhar v. the State of Kerala

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

N.P. Nazar Vs State of Kerala

C. Surendranath Vs State of Kerala

Ajina.N Vs State of Kerala

Valsan Jerome Vs Anotny Titus

Rajeevan.E., Vs State of Kerala

The President, Vs Sreekumar