Allowed

A.Manjula Devi v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by

Telangana HC6 Apr 2010WP/28451/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the termination of a contract employee. It held that terminating services after issuing a show-cause notice and receiving an explanation, without recording findings, violates natural justice, though reinstatement was denied as the contract had expired.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order terminating services set aside; contract appointment continued subject to respondent's future decision to extend it.

A.Manjula Devi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.28451 of 2009

¶3

Dated: 06-04-2010

Between:

A. Manjula Devi.

… Petitioner

And

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayath Raj and Rural Development & others.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.28451 of 2009

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

As much as counter affidavit is filed, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity of the order, dated 28.05.2009, passed by the 2^nd respondent in Proceedings No.043/SRDS/HR/2009, by which, the contract service of petitioner is terminated. 3. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Project Director in the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, on contract basis. The contract period is two years i.e. from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2010. Making certain allegations, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, and a show cause notice, dated 18^th March 2009, is issued in Notice No.043/SRDS/HR/2009, with the following allegations : “1. She has failed to achieve the targets assigned to her inspite of several reminders.

¶14

2. She failed to conduct enquiry into the allegations on banned works in Fathepur and Lingampalli village of Station Ghanpur (M).

¶15

3. She failed to review and monitor Programme wise funds positions and placement of indents for

¶16

release of funds which caused hardship to poor beneficiaries in releasing the bills payable to them as wage seekers.

¶17

4. She failed to monitor the payments by cash and material to wage seekers.

¶18

5. She has not submitted her explanation to the memo 1^st cited, and thereby showed disregard to the instructions of higher authorities in an indiscipline manner.”

¶19

4. In response to the said show cause notice, a detailed explanation is filed by the petitioner, denying each and every allegation, stating that she is not responsible for any of the charges levelled against her. After receipt of explanation, the impugned order, dated 28.05.2009 is passed, terminating the services of petitioner, merely stating that the Project Director, Warangal, in his remarks, stated that all the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved and the reply filed by her is not convincing.

¶20

5. It is true that the petitioner is given contract appointment for a period of two years, and within the said period of two years, if the contract service is to be terminated, the respondents can do so in terms of the contract. But, when certain allegations are made against the petitioner, which cause stigma on her and inquiry is initiated and a show cause notice is issued, for which, an explanation is filed by her, without recording any findings on the allegations, it is not open for the respondents to terminate the services of petitioner. It is not a case where the inquiry officer is appointed to inquire into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. When show cause notice is issued making serious allegations and when explanation is filed, without recording any findings

¶21

with reference to the explanation offered by the petitioner, no order can be passed terminating her services, merely stating that the explanation filed is not convincing. Such an order is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶22

6. At the same time, it is to be noted that the contract appointment given to the petitioner is expired by 31^st of March 2010. In that view of the matter, no direction can be given for reinstatement of petitioner. It is open to the respondents to independently decide as to whether the services of petitioner are to be extended or not and take steps accordingly. It is made clear that if the services of petitioner are not satisfactory, it is open to the respondents to take a decision either to continue or not, the contract service of petitioner.

¶23

7. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.

¶24

______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶25

6^th April 2010 ajr

A.Manjula Devi v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Manjula Devi v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pilla Apparao Vs Sec.Financeandcommerce INDIAAND3 Others

D. Maheswari, Vs The Project Director

K.Srinivasa Reddy Vs The Director General ,Border Security Force

R.Ramulu Vs The Mandal Parishad Development officer, M.P.Telkapally

M.Upender REddy Vs Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, rep.by its

M.Krishnamurthy Vs Mandal Parishad Development Officer