.^•^^ ^^s^^ p-"y:t-:-T.. ...-^f^-^ ^^^ ^t6yA .-•••'"" ^9' 1% THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO.^-^/2006 Petitloner ^ Sanjeev Kumar Bharti, S/o Shambhu Ram Bharti, Aged about 37 years, Block Resource Centre Co-ordinator, Sitapur, District - Surguja (CG) Versus Respondents 1\ A ^\% "•:. ^s^*5 -^' )W^s. 0^'£>-• 1) State of Chhattisgarh - Through the Secretary, School Education Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C,G.) f 2) / The Mission Director, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission (Sarwa Shiksha Abhiyan) Avantika Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) ^ The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Evam Zila Pariyojana, Director, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Surguja, Ambikapur. ^ 4) The Collectior, Distt. Surguja (C.G.). The Unipn of India - through Human Resources Department, New Delhi. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2^6/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-78 sn^TwrR'ii'ti (raT3n^?rdi*ii+ <4MWI S«l+ll<h a'sg'.qraRW, ^Til'H'is, fsicii'Hy .W-f- ^T-S-^k ^200 3T7^?riRra? (i^gg^sT) ?^TWgf?(T3TI^T 25.7.2006 Shri P.&iwakar, Sr. Adv. w, Shri 6.K. Beriwal, Dy. A.6. Miss Deepali Pandey, Adv. th Shrj K.S. Pawar, ^dv. for the petitioner. for respondent Nos.1, 3 &4. ^ippea-s on behalf of Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, terminated from the post of 'b|i|tct<0-1 WRJY^'teA <,R|<^1<. ^srf^Hsn^T Advocate for the respondent No.p. Shri Shailendra Q^&ey, S^pndiry Counsel for respondent No.5. Hea-d. Return on behalf of respo^ident Nos.1 to 4 has olready been filed. By this petition under Arficle 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner- has questioned t^e legality & pr-opriety of the order dated 28.4.2006 (Annexure P-3) where(>y the services of the petitionei* have been Btock Coordinator, R<y'iv ©ondhi Shiksha Mission, Sitapur, Sar9ujo. The main grievance of t^ie petitioner, in this petition, is that on 28.4.2006 he was on ctuty, as m4ntioned in Pora 6.2 of tiie petition that on thot day petitioner was assi9n4d other duty <md hence, it was titerally impossible for hini to attend 1|ie arid Probtem Solution Camp. The Sub Oivisional Officer (Revenue), Sit^pur vide letter dated 28.4.2006 (Armexure P-4) app'ised the Coltector Ihfft) some other duty and thereforej the services of the petitioner on 28.4.2006 the petitioner was assigned he wss absent when the Hon'ble Minister ha^called hirn. Reply of r-espond^nt No.l to 4 to this pora9raph is that since we temporory, therefore, same could be terminated ot'any time without dpf prior intimation, hence the groimd urged thot no opporhinity of hearing is ^iven to the petitioner is baseless. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 S^^TPIRPT, ®Tny*16,Rlc1IU^< HTHt^Ta»M1^l ^ 200 sn^r 4a<*i ('i^i^'^r) 3n^r?irR-i traTsn^Tsbii* ??tfWfl1ia'3n^T ~ ZL- Perusal of impugned order Solution Camp w<» orgmized at Minister of Tribal Welfare Departi^ient, Stote of C.6. came <MI the spot the petitioner was not present on duty^ even when he was called by the special messenger he did not attend the cc^np <md os the petitioner was not present in the meeting of the Literacy Com^nittee, l+ierefore, hjs senrices have been terminated with immediate effect. Sitapur apprised the Cotlector vid^ Annexure P-4 dated 28.4.2006 Ihat on 28.4.2006 a Problem Solutipn Ca^np was organized in Ihe Boys Higher Secondary School, Sitapur, the H^n'ble Minister came ot about 4 pm and during that period the Hon'ble Mit>ister enquired Aout the petitioner i.e. Sanjeev Bhflrti, on which employees may be coming. In the meantim^ not misbehme with any Minister noi Therefore, in view of the Minister concerned come, he went appointment, but here the case is ^rafep(h'WRifffte^ rfSrezR ^sr^Hsn^r reveals that on 28.4.2006 a Problem anpad Ponchayot Sitapur and when the On the contrary, the S.&.O. (Revenue), replied thot just now he was here and he , the Hon'ble Minister ordered for his suspension, at that point of time t|ie petitioner come and said that he went to supervise the preparation of fo{»d and he is coming from there. He did there wos any complaint. above, the letter of S.b.O. (Revenue), Sitapur dated 28.4.2006 (Annexur|e P-4) discloses that the petitioner was not lAsent from his duty, he waSp very much on his duty and when the to supervise the preparation of food, as per iwders of the outhority w^ os such, the order impugned dated 28.4.2006 is passed on the non-exi^tent ground. It is true that the services of a temporary employee can be te('minated in accordance with the terms of entirely different, the services of the petitioner have been terminat^d on •the non-existent gpound that P.T.O. XI-HC-78 •3:n^rw R-ii* cWTSiT^TOTra ->'. Roshan/- ^ .^° .J-/ f^y 3^Bnqi?PT, ^Tfly'ifi, R(^iyy,< *iwcirawrai Wf 200 W^?T>ia<t> (>icli^sl<iW) ?%TW ?rii?r sn^T z when the Hon'ble Minister visited did not turn up even after the call (Revenue) Sitapur vide tetter categorically stated that the pet the prepar-ation of food and in Tlierefore, the impigned order is existent ground and liable to be qi In the result, the petiti( impugned order dated 28.4.2006 ( Consequently, M.(W.)P. ^ stand disposed of. Certified copy as per rules |tie camp the petitioner wos absent and he by special messenger, «»hereas,the S.&.O. Annexure P-4 dated 28.4.2006 has tioner wos on duty and went to supen'ise presence of the Minister he appeared. ^ arbitrary <md has been passed on the non- lashed. ^n of the petitioner is allowed and the ^nnexure P-3) is hemby quashed. Ito. 2502/06 & I.A. N0.6433/06 afso 'hiifa'fl-i (<ii'i-A'i['te^ iftl^K, ^•aTf^iTsm^T Sd/- L.C. Bhadcso Jud.ge P.T.O.