The Jabalpur Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside an order of termination last week while observing that no opportunity was given to petitioner to hear him and directly an order terminating service has been passed.
The petitioner, Satendra Singh Sengar, filed the plea being aggrieved by order dated July 13, 2021 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that he remained in custody for more than 48 hours.
Dharmendra Patel, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that before passing of impugned order no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. It is further submitted that as per clause 18(15) of circular of MP Rajya Rojgar Guarantee Parishad an opportunity of hearing is to be provided to Gram Rojgar Sahayak whose services are to be terminated for misconduct or being involved in any criminal offence. Taking aid of clause 18 (15), counsel argued that Petitioner ought to have been given opportunity of hearing before passing of impugned order.
Dev Dutt Bhave, Counsel for the State Government contended that as per clause 17 services of contract employees can be terminated without giving any notice. In such conditions, aggrieved persons can file an appeal as per the clarification issued by MP Rajya Rojgar Guarantee Parishad on 21.1.2021. By invoking clause 17, Authority can pass an order for termination of services without giving any notice.
A single-judge bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat while considering the Petition noted that Clause 16 of directions issued by M.P. Rajya Rojgar Guarantee Parishad provides a condition in which services of Gram Rojgar Sahayak can be terminated before completion of contract period. Clause 18 (15) lays down the procedure to be adopted for termination of services of contract employees.
“Clause 17 further provides that services can be terminated without giving notice. Clause 18 (15) and Clause 18 (17) are somewhat contrary to each other. Clause 18(15) provides for an opportunity of hearing before terminating the contract of service. Clause 17 provides that services can be terminated without giving notice. Clauses 16, 17 and 18(15) are to be read together harmoniously so that clause 18(15) may not become otiose, therefore, opportunity of hearing is to be provided before termination of service”, further noted by the court .
Therefore, the Court disposed of the petition, while setting aside the order of termination.