Non-Extension Of Contract Based On Allegations Of Absence From Duty, Without Following Due Process Violates Natural Justice: Chhattisgarh HC

In a case pertaining to non-extension of services of a Rojgar Sahayak, the Chattisgarh High Court said that when such decision has civil consequences and is based on allegations of negligence and absence from duty, then it cannot be taken without adhering to principles of natural justice.

The Court observed that in the present case respondent authorities–Zila Panchayat, Mungeli, had failed to follow the mandatory procedures, which consisted of assessment of services by ACRs and affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

Justice Parth Prateem Sahu said, "From the aforementioned facts and perusal of Rule 15 of the Rules, 2012 [Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2012], it is appearing that it was mandatory upon the respondents to write the ACRs which can be considered for extending the period of contract and evaluation of the services/work done by the petitioner. In the present case, the respondents have not brought on record that the petitioner was supplied the copy of ACRs time to time of each year. The order of non extension of his services is having the civil consequences, more so, when the non-extension is on the ground of leveling of allegations against the petitioner of negligence in discharging his services and remaining absent from service.”

"Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions as discussed above, in the opinion of this Court, Respondent No. 4 
(Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Mungeli) erred in not extending the period of service of the petitioner without giving him an opportunity of hearing and therefore, the letter dated 12.02.2019 (Annexure P/2) is quashed," the court added. 

The petitioner, who was appointed as a Rojgar Sahayak on a contractual basis, served continuously until 2017 with periodic extensions. However, without assigning any reason, his contract was not extended in 2017. The petitioner asked for reasons regarding non-extension, to which Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Mungeli (Respondent No. 4) replied that it was due to his alleged absence from service. Notably, the petitioner was not provided copies of his ACRs, which are crucial for assessing his performance and determining whether a contract should be renewed or not.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as the service period was not extended on adverse grounds, civil consequences were involved and as such, the principles of natural justice must be followed.The petitioner thus submitted that no such order could have been passed without issuance of a show-cause notice and an opportunity to reply to the allegations. For want of due procedure, the order of non-extension of service was illegal.

The respondents further contended that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, and he had replied, which was sufficient compliance with the principles of natural justice. The respondents thus contended that the petitioner's claims were not sustainable since the required procedure was followed.

The Court found that the respondents failed to produce any record showing the petitioner was served a show-cause notice within the prescribed period. Additionally, there was no specific order of termination or non-extension communicated to the petitioner. The Court underscored that the absence of ACRs further invalidated the respondent authorities' decision not to extend the contract.

Allowing the petition, the Chhattisgarh High Court directed the Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Lormi, District Mungeli (Respondents No. 3) and the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat (Respondent No. 4) to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law and decide on the continuation of the petitioner's services.

Case Title: Dev Singh Parmar v State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Case No.: WPS No. 4689 of 2019

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Pallav Mishra

Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Ritesh Giri

Click Here To Read Judgment