1»~<U> IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P^STo.^7/ / 200 Petitioner Respondents 1) ^•y^y" 'p:^^^r Rajesh Kujur, S/o Shri Victor Kujur, Aged about 37 years, R/o Village Ramanujnagar, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh - Through the Secretary, School Education Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Mission Director, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission (Sarwa Shiksha Abhiyan) Avantika Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) 3) ,«»E.^"yr WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE The Collector-cum-District Mission Director, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.6271 OF 2007 Rajesh Kujur Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate for the respondents No.2 & 3. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 9th day ofApril, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 6-10-2007 (Annexure - P/5) passed by the Collector, Sarguja, whereby the petitioner working as Block Resource Coordinator (contract) has been removed from service. 2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, which are germane for adjudication of the case, are that the petitioner was appointed on 14-5-1996 .(Annexure - P/1) on contract basis for a period of one year by the Collector-cum-District Mission Director, Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission, Sarguja, stating clearly that the appointment was purely temporary and was removable any time. Thereafter, by order dated 6-10-2007 the petitioner was removed from the service. \ 3. Shri Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Collector is not competent to pass the impugned removal order. The Mission Director is the senior WFgS!S3!!s ls<t-!lfeWf:i officer to the Collector; therefore, the impugned order is bad and void. Learned counsel further submits that after receipt of the show cause notice, reply was filed by the petitioner, however, no enquiry was held and even the statement of the petitioner was also not recorded, therefore, it is a case of violation of principles of natural justice. If the allegations are there, enquiry is necessary, even if, the appointment is on contract basis. 4. On the other, Shri Kachhawaha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 & 3, submits that pursuant to the show cause notice dated 27-9-2007 (Annexure - P/3), the petitioner appeared before the Collector on 1-10-2007 and submitted his written explanation in relation to the charges leveled in the show cause notice. Learned counsel furi:her submits that the petitioner in his statement before the Sub Divisional Officer, who was conducted preliminary enquiry has pleaded guilty. Statement of the petitioner is Annexure - R2/1 (page 14 of the return of the respondents No.2 & 3). Shri Kachhawaha, next submits that under clause 4 of fhe service conditions of Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission, Sarguja, provides for termination with one month's notice, if the person working on contract is found inefficient, indulging in undesirable activities amounting to degradation of dignity of mission. Shri Shridhar, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, adopts the submission of the respondents No.2 & 3. \- 8. In rejoinder, Shri Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not admitted his guilt, but has clarified that he has no role in purchase of T.L.E. materials and further, he has no knowledge about the system of purchase of T.L.E. materials. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. There is no dispute that the appointment of the petitioner was made by the Collector-cum-District Mission Director, Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission, Sarguja, on contract basis for a period of one year on 14-5-1996. Without any renewal, the petitioner continued to work on the post. Thus, even continuation may not be held as legal because the period of his engagement came to an end after completion of one year. Thus, without going into the aspect of continuation of the petitioner, it can safely be held that the impugned order has been passed by the competent authority. Be that as it may, it is well settled principle of law that the appointing authority itself is a disciplinary authority. If a person has been appointed by the Collector-cum-District Mission Director, Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission, Sarguja, he is the disciplinary authority. No other officer can be held as disciplinary authority. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the removal order can only be passed by the !.,4-WBI.y"»'n-J*?'!'.''*ll.l'kt'1 f^SSSS. State Mission Director, is contrary to the well settled principles of law and is accordingly rejected. 9. Service conditions of Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission (Annexure - P/7) do not provide for regular employment. Clause 4 ofthe said scheme reads as under: "4. Persons working on • contract can be terminated with one month notice if found inefficient. In case of persons found indulged jn undesirable activities amounting to degradation of dignity of Mission, Mission Director shall reserve right to terminate him/her with immediate effect." 10. Show cause notice and reply does not dispute that the working of the petitioner was not proper, not in accordance with the rules. Thus, it cannot be held that he was not indulging undesirable activities. As required under the scheme, a show cause notice was given towhich reply was also submitted by the petitioner and the petitioner can also not be allowed to say that he was not given opportunity to record his statement because the petitioner himself has deposed before the Sub Divisional Officer, who was conducting preliminary enquiry and he has admitted deficiency in service, but on account of the fact that he was not aware of the legal provisions. The impugned order is just, proper and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. 11. Inthe result, thewritpetition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge \ o' !^~.'ii^A1^7?:^^"%^L^SSi*S4I^^a&WeB^^E/f?i^^&»;'-S^a3l"-*'fltt*W*»t WSU'.SCiSSiWiSWSSSK'itsiSis^SetESSSS^fSSSIIgliSS^^SW