Madras High Court: In a writ petition filed against the order passed by Director/Commissioner, Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department (‘SW&WED’) in terminating the service of the petitioner and the order passed by the Principal Secretary, (‘SW&WED’) in rejecting her reinstatement in service and to quash the same and consequently direct the Department to reinstate the petitioner as Protection Officer in any of the district of Tamil Nadu with all consequential benefits including pay arrears of salary, backwages, allowances with all other emoluments from the date of termination to the date of her reinstatement and seniority, G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J. while upholding the impugned orders, said that merely permitting the petitioner to continue her service after completion of one year, doesn’t amount to appointment made as per Rule 3(3) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules 2006. As per contract, at any time without any notice, she will be terminated from her service.
Background:
Petitioner was appointed as Protection Officer for the period of one year on consolidated salary, based on the notification issued in Government Order. She is qualified with Master degree, M. Phil, Diploma in Nursing and Diploma in counselling conducted by the Netherlands Stitching Gestalt Fundations-2000. Her appointment was made under the provisions of Section 8 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘PWDV Act’). She was initially appointed at Pudukottai and subsequently, she got transferred to Chennai. Though she was appointed for one year but later, her services were renewed till 22-11-2022.
Some complaints were received against the petitioner and in pursuant to the said complaints, she was directed to submit an explanation. On receipt of the detailed explanation submitted by her, all the complaints were closed. Even then, without any notice and without conducting any enquiry, she was terminated from service by the impugned order dated 31-10-2022, by Director/Commissioner, SW&WED.
Analysis:
After perusing the initial appointment order dated 26-08-2009, the Court noted that the petitioner was temporarily appointed as Protection Officer and if any complaints and for any other reasons without any prior notice, she will be terminated from her service. While the petitioner was serving as Protection Officer, there were so many complaints received against her, she was issued with show cause notice for calling her to submit explanation. Since her explanation was not satisfactory, she was terminated from service.
The Court said that the petitioner was appointed as Protection Officer for the period of one year on temporary basis that too on consolidated salary. The post of Protection Officers has been created on consolidated pay and delegated the powers to the Director/Commissioner, SW&WED to fill up the posts of Protection Officers. These posts are not governed by any service rules of the Government and governed as per the terms of contractual agreement entered by the incumbents and the contract could be terminated before the completion of one year on the ground of unsatisfactory service on the candidate selected or on the administrative grounds or when it is felt that continued employment is found unnecessary.
The Court noted that the petitioner was not appointed under Rule 3(3) of the PWDV Rules 2006, and was appointed for the period of one year on contract basis under the consolidated salary by an order dated 26.08.2009. Thereafter she was permitted to continue her service after completion of one year. Merely permitting the petitioner to continue her service after completion of one year, doesn’t amount to ‘her appointment was made as per Rule 3(3) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules 2006’. As per contract, at any time without any notice, she will be terminated from her service.
Thus, the Court held that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Director/Commissioner, SW&WED in terminating the service of the petitioner and the order passed by the Principal Secretary..
[Pandiammal v. Director\Commissioner Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 588, Order dated 20-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner : Senior Counsel P.V.S.Giridhar
For Respondents : Government Advocate R.L.Karthika
