HE§H COURT QF £HHATTI$5ARH AT BILA5PUR Wri‘f Pefi'mn N6. 154§l19§$3 CQRAAM Hon’bie Shri $.§.Nayak, Chief Jus‘rice & Hw‘bie 5hri S.R.Beshmuk:h, 3. 9a‘ri’fim13w 1. 5mm 0% Madhya Pmdesh fhvough .Sgcremry, Depgrfmem of Revznue, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhnpal (MR) Cammissimer of 53fflamen'r, §wai§or (MR). 3. Assismrw Sewzmem Officer, Easf Sarguja, Ambikapur, Dm'ric‘t Sarguja (MR) ' 4. Sefi‘kman‘? Officer, $argujar, (MR) Versus I‘d Rajaqdm Pmsad Gupfa, Occupa‘rim Tracer, s/o Shri P.D.6up1'a, Fores‘rer', Range Office, Dhorpw‘, Districf: Sunguja, (MR) Respomdenfs 5uresh Shukkz, Occupation Tracer, r/o ' Kamnji Railway Coiony, Dis-I‘ric‘r: Sarguja (MR) . Balismr Vadav, Occupa‘rion: Dmughff$mam >s/o Shri S.P.Vqdav, ri‘n Ambikdpur, Distriw: Sarguja, (MPJ Vijay Bahadur Dubey; Occupation Tracgr, sfo Shri Rammksho Tiwar'i, 0/0 ASS‘H'. Se‘Hlemes’iT Off§cer, Pmfappur, Disfricfi Sarguja, {MR} Luxmun Sing'h, Occupation Tracer, s/o Shr§ Vijay Singh, P/e) Bhuiya'fhan, Ambikapur, Dis'rric-r: Sarguja, (MR) Smfe Adminisfmfiva TribunaJ, MP. cf Jgbalgur, (MP) Shri Ufkarsh Verma, Counse! for, The pefifioners/Smfe. Shri f’imrifo Das, Counsel For responden'rs No.1 f0 5. GRAL ORDER (Passed on 222.2006) The falbwirrg am! m‘der of fhe Cour? ~was passed by SRNA‘I’AK, CJ. . ._2/ 53 In fhis V}? pe?i1‘ion preferred y fhe Sm‘i'e d Sm‘te Aha‘ies, he validi'h; of he m‘dar‘ 9f fhe M.?.Adminis+m?ive Tribunal, abalpur garmh a? Jabalpur {for Show? t Tribunai) n O.A.No.1120/’1992 is aSSailed. 2. 1"mg fa‘rs o fhe case, m biaf, are as fallows: c f E r Th reondens ’i To 5 war appéinfed as Tracer a rder da‘’ed 1339 0f “rhe Sef?lame%1+ Oiae, Ambiapur Sarguja, fhe fourfh $a‘!’§+ionar hamm, ffer subjeciing ‘fham "f0 se!ecficn pws a? ‘rhe hand cf fhe selecfian cmi'h’ea consfiufed he Dewm‘mam‘ d affgr‘ ekig somsorsmp o fhir names from The comarmed Employme Exchomge cmd ffer obtining ‘fhe recomando‘ion of ‘hz selection ooiTe. Of cours in fhe apiwmem‘ orer, §T is sm'red fhaf 1‘heir appoimme'rs ae pureiy femomry and hey are liab!e o b removed n se fheir w is no? foL safis‘fcfory or n ase dispii i'rhuf ny prr nofice. e ervice o e resnden‘?s .1 To 5 were ermio'rd y der ciafe 3” arc 192 y Asi’n'i Se‘ri’lemen'f fcer, pe'i’i‘t‘ioner No hn; g g y *e boe he d pei‘ifiner, The resoooden‘s No.1 fo 5 insfiufed .A‘No.1120/92 before ’fhe Tribunai. The Tribunal y fs orcier dafed 2.6.1998 oilowed Origii ppiicofion and quashed fhe fermfin orde wih oi! orisequ‘enfiol benefifs loWiri rom fhe quoshing. Being aggrieved by The said order of fhe Tribum, fhe Sfofe and S‘fe Ahorifies are before is Cou" by way of Wrif Pe‘i’ifion uer rficle 226/2 ns o 3. e hove heard ieorned counse! for fhe porfieSQ Learned Gomenf Advocofe wouf conferid fhof since fhe ervices of fhe respdehfs No.1 f 5 were ferminofed ide order ofed 30.3.2 wifhof Cosfih ahy sfigmo on he resondenfs o. '’o 5 in eXerci of Te wer rerve by The eprmehf in fhe oppoihfmen orrs, fe Tribuno! oug no“? T have inferfered wifh fe ferminoion der. mr # mmTe e, po d n r p T f e i ca ork md a i c of incine wo a io h ss f ih po No fne b or d 0" Mh 9 b ssro Ofi .3 erei gein agrieved b h av order of f fhir o r ‘r O b i 7 m A inoo r f c fg f fh r? nd A 2? of Cofifufion f Iodio. W vern d s oh o v d 9 u g T p N1 i se h po esd Dof f de h hf o h f or Oh W b {m ufrii f f J' “he i e spf No e s: Vid o i 0 ffr k a mg s am f by T !‘ aa san p f e w o a i af uf 54 fha Qfhe? himd, s a karma! csume! for me respondenfs N01 “f0 5 whiie suppsm‘ing 'i’he impugned erdar 6f ’E'he Tribuna! wcuk! highhgh’r 'khm‘ fhaugh The ‘mrminafim orders Sgem "m be inmcusus fermimfiori simpHci‘mr‘, fha impugned fe?mina'%ion arder came +3 be issued an The ’ basis 9f miscnnduci’ aii‘ribui'ed in fhe raspehderi'is No.1 is 5- employaes‘. Er} m‘har words, accsrdiag Te 4:413 Iwmeci wimsei for resporiéen’is N91 iio 5. ihe iarmimfim ordai" is based {m c1 saiisfacfiori {Vf 'iha peii‘iiamrs N03 & 4 ‘i'i’mi The respondzn‘is No.1 is 5 are guiiiy‘ 0f miscnnduci arid indiscipiii'ie and such an apinicn wag formed i3y iiiem wifhw‘i apwisiiig ihe re3ponden‘is No.1 Te 5 and wifhauf giving may oppari’m'iify f0 ”mam i0 have Their say in “ihe mafia", Thus comipieiaiy’ visiaiing The pi"ii1cipies m‘ naiumi jusi’ice and mancia’res of Ariicie i4 pos’miaies. 4. Having heard ieamed aounsel for i’he pariiea 'Hqe quesfion fhm' crise$ for wr considera'iien anddecision is whe‘i'her' any ground made oui by The S’ra‘ie am! Siaie Aufhori‘fies +0 inferfere wH’h The urcier‘ mada by fhs Tribunal impugned in ihis wri‘i’ peii‘fion. The documenfs pieced before she Coum‘ weuld undeniabiy shew sha? fhe respondenfs Neil ‘re 5 came 1‘5 be appain’red ‘i'e The pos? of Tracers in pursuance of The empioymeni’ nesifica‘iion issued by ihe fourth pe‘rifioner and aiso offer obfaining sponsorship by The concerned Empioymeni’ Exchange and subjeciing fhem as; The rTesTs and inTeWiews prescribed for The pas? of Tmeers. IT is also seen ThaT The appoinTmenT orders were issued by The fourTh peTiTioner on The recommende‘i’ion of The seiecTion commiT‘i’ee consTiTuTed for selecTion purpose. Simpiy because The oppoinTmenT order conTaihs a douse, as per which, The 4” peTiTioner had reserved power To TerminaTe The services of respohdenTs No.1 To 5 in case There is no need for Their service or in case iT comes To his knowledge ThaT They are guilTy oT' indisciplihe and derelieTion of duTies, iT carmoT be said ThaT The STaTe arid STaTe AuThoriTies could acT arbiTrarilv and unreasonably violaTing ArTicle 14 -(i_ l i psfuhfes. If s :10? a mpe case of aoc or sfop-gap arrangement appoén+merlfs. The r'espoaenfs N1 +0 5 were appnfed en. rauhr v b$is agaif fha fen exisfmg vcancias in 'i'he pas? of Tacers, There is m mad or us ‘i’a dila‘ife 0?! This ascw‘ fur'her, bécause, The imugnad TwmEnafien srder's couid ‘no‘f be sus‘ind n law i no? for a ranom bu fr 's‘he reasm “fha‘l' e erminafin Thgh smid To b ‘ spci H wa d f T Th dd 1 2 p wue i , f ny s ? a Th To au ’e e Ter‘mmmien imTifor, um‘ually, ’ s made in pursuance m‘ a sarious allegufion mae agaimi‘ fhe respcndens No.1 o 5. isvis disase by i'he pe?i*rioner=s 'hemseives En paras 7 and 8 0f 141 smwmer}? Qf abjec?ions/re+urn filed by Them befere f Tr§bunaL They re foHows: If is specificaHy nied fa There ere m comp'nt aainsf fhe gplicanfs. The 'perarmance of 'The applium‘ were nof sa'risfcfory ad indiecplin was aiso epbr‘red 1‘0 Te nespondenfvNA‘fo his Ipe‘i u‘rori‘ry fake acTio agast nd as “Pam— : I r h o comem uh To n in 'ihe pp iica’n‘s. The Annex A—5 ifi eaks Thai The conduc'i ihe appican‘rs were no’ sa‘risaci'ory To frhe sa‘risfac‘ii of Te responden? No.4 and ‘1heir srves wer ible To be ierminafed as per he eondian of appoien‘t order. he were noi em‘ified for any kind of ri'ice as the were nei+he permanehi or quasiermanen'l’ emp'yee". Para-8—r I"? is ndiess To ia‘i’ ‘ihcri' in para-7, The respondents {peiiiiones hen whii smfing iha? The services of appicah'i's (respehden's Ne.1 To 5 herein) were rm? se’sfaci'ory, ve aa sfai'e fha‘i’ e idiscipiine comiffed y ‘rhem as braugh ‘ihe oc o T i y io a he ei o a io e p w e acTion ogainsT indiscipiine alleged Te have Been commiTTed by The r rei) e l r ri ha is d fh n m b w i f0 ntie f he fourfh peii’ioner who is compe‘fem‘ au‘i‘hori‘i 1’o Take ac‘i'n geihsi’ ‘i' rspondens N.1 To 5. In o‘iher words, ccording ' Th eTiTioners haT They have don by issuing TerminoTion order is an o i si! dh d 13 oi g a ns h u r f pe r he de hf w ims g a f c a n ie a r ure sef s ’ of l 'l f on h e e ia i iis n'i'm Ty oi y r -p io ee se _ y’— 58 respowdenfs No. 1 To 5‘ If The Smw empbyer mmg To fake any :mHbn agains‘? c< delimquem emplayee includmg #ermimfing ?he services m; guci's empbyea as’a‘disciptinas‘y measure, if is Wife “Ham” gush :xcfim caufd be ‘mken by “fhe Sm‘re amphyer ME); m‘TeE framing g charge of mi‘3c0e1ducf, £9nduc?ing a departmenm! enquiry in accordame wifh rules and ragukwims gavemirzg such enquiry cmd affer‘ giving The delmquea? m‘fidak fd€r apparmaiw *€'o de§e§1d ‘fhemsahes effeciively, {m appmcia‘rim éf *he finéirrgs recarded by The enquiring au'rhorify aad cJSO Takmg En‘m accounf a” facfs amd circumg‘mnc'es of The case. Noi‘hing of ‘fhm‘ 3w? has been dame in This sase. S‘h‘ici'iy speaking, ‘?ha fermimiicn arders passed by pafi‘fioner's No.1 i0 4 are penai in naiune undar inz guise of iiie pnwer To iermineie fhe services a‘i‘ respandenis Naii m 5 reserved in ‘ihe appcini’men‘i orders. In “rho? View of The mo?fer, “there is absoiuieiy no good reason for us To differ from fhe ‘view Token by fhe .ieorned Tribunai. -o The wri'f peiii‘ion is devoid of meri'i and if is occordingiy 5 dismissed. No cos‘i's. Sdl- Chief Justice