Contract Appointment Of Protection Officer, Can't Continue Beyond Term: Madras High Court

A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice G.K.Ilanthiraiyan while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of Pandiammal vs Commissioner, Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department & Ors has held that Protection Officer appointed on contract basis cannot be termed to be appointed under Rule 3(3) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 (DV Rules) merely because she was allowed to continue her service after completion of tenure of contract.

Background Facts

Pandiammal (Petitioner) was appointed as Protection Officer in 2009 under Section 8 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). Although during the tenure of her service she was awarded several awards, several complaints were received against the Petitioner in pursuance to which she was asked to submit an explanation. Detailed explanations were submitted by the Petitioner following which all complaints were closed. However, without any notice and without conducting any enquiry, the Petitioner was terminated from service in 2022 by Commissioner, Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department (Respondent 1). A representation was filed by the Petitioner before The Government of Tamil Nadu (Respondent 4) to reconsider the decision of termination. However, Respondent 4 as well rejected the reinstatement of the Petitioner. Thus, the Petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition against the order of termination and the order confirming the termination order.

It was contended by the Petitioner that she was terminated from service without issuance of any notice and without conducting any enquiry which was in violation of principles of natural justice. Further Respondent 1 did not have jurisdiction to terminate the petitioner as only the government can appoint a Protection Officer under DV Act, so only the government would have power to terminate a Protection Officer. It was further contended that the petitioner was appointed on a contractual basis for period of 1 year and her contract was renewed from time to time for 1 year. However under Rule 3(3) of the DV Rules, the tenure of a Protection Officer needs to be 3 years. Thus, the appointment of the Petitioner for 1 year was not a valid contract and thus she could not have been terminated before completion of 3 years of service.

On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondent that the Petitioner was appointed temporarily, and that too on a contractual basis. Various complaints were received against the Petitioner from the public and a detail enquiry against the Petitioner was conducted wherein the explanation submitted by the Petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. Further, since the appointment of the Petitioner was on a contractual basis, there was no need to issue a show cause notice before her termination.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that when the Petitioner was working as Protection Officer, there were many complaints received against her and she was issued a show cause notice calling for an explanation. Since the explanation submitted by her was not satisfactory, she was terminated from service. Further she was given an opportunity for hearing before Respondent 4, who took into account to complaints against the Petitioner and the explanation submitted by her while rejecting the request of reinstatement of the Petitioner.

The court further observed that if any complaints are received against the Protection Officer, it would not be appropriate to continue such Protection Officer to enquire the complaints received from the aggrieved persons.

The court also observed that the post of Protection Officer under DV Act was not governed by any service rules of the Government and governed as per the terms of contractual agreement of the incumbents. Such a contact could be terminated before the completion of one year on the ground of unsatisfactory service on the candidate or when it is felt that continued employment is unnecessary.

The court also remarked that the Petitioner was not appointed under Rule 3(3) of the DV Rules but appointed temporarily on contract basis for one year. Merely because the Petitioner was allowed to continue her service after completion of one year does not mean her appointment was made under Rule 3(3) of the DV Rules. Thus, under the contract, she can be terminated at any time without notice.

With the aforesaid observations, the Civil Writ Petition was dismissed.

Case No.- W.P.No.32200 of 2023

Case Title: Pandiammal vs Commissioner, Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 148 

Counsel for the Petitioner- Mr. P.V.S. Giridhar Senior Counsel For Mr K.G. Krishnaraj and Ms. S. Shanthakumar

Counsel for Respondent- Mrs. R.L. Karthika Government Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order