Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:58567 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15714 of 2024 Petitioner :- Mohd Zaki Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adya Prasad Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner before this Court, who has been working as Protection Officer in the office of District Chief Protection Unit, Maharajganj and had the duty assigned for the area namely Tehsil – Nautanwa, is aggrieved by the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 18th September, 2024 rescinding the contract of appointment. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner though has been working on a contract basis for a long time ever since 2012, there has been no adverse report regarding his work and conduct but suddenly for one alleged negligence that too may not be absolutely attributable to him, he has been fired. 4. Sri Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that soon after getting information from the erstwhile Pradhan regarding three unclaimed children of eight years, four years and two years have been found, he immediately rushed to rescue them on the very next day of information but by that time he could have rescued them, a two year old child had already succumbed to fever. 5. It is contended by Mr. Tewari that it was duty of police station to have taken immediate action but police failed in discharge of duties and petitioner, therefore, at the most, could be held to be a little casual if at all, inasmuch as negligence was not such which could be said to be a deliberate one to cause injury to the child, who died of fever. 6. Per contra, it is argued by Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that petitioner who has been working on contract basis had the duty assigned to ensure that unclaimed children are recovered are rescued by the Protection Officer and while petitioner was informed regarding the same on 15th September, 2024, he should have reached to the place to rescue children that very day or early morning of the next day. It is argued, had petitioner been very attentive and sincere about his duties, the child who died at the age of two years suffering from high fever, could have been rescued. It is further submitted that petitioner's contract of appointment if has been rescinded having found him to be negligent in discharge of his duties, petitioner cannot claim that the negligence was not wholly absolutely attributable to him. It is also argued that principles of natural justice have stood complied with as petitioner was served with a notice to submit his reply and reply submitted cannot be said to have established a valid defence to find any manifest error in the order impugned. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that the District Magistrate has come to return a cogent finding of fact to the effect that petitioner has been informed 24 hours prior to the time of death of two year old child and if he could not attend the baby to rescue, only he could be blamed. In order to test the findings returned by the District Magistrate I have gone through the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice and I find that petitioner himself admitted this fact that he had been intimated of three unclaimed children found on 15th September, 2024 itself but petitioner deliberately or may be negligently failed to disclose the exact time of information given to him. It would, therefore, be taken that information must have reached in time and he could have attended the children on 15th September, 2024 itself. I find that the petitioner tried to attend the children only at 11:30 hours on 16th September, 2024 that is almost noon hours. 8. No explanation has come forth as to why petitioner could not rush to rescue the children early morning on the next day and he could not attend the children on 15th September, 2024. 9. In such above view of the matter, therefore, I find no manifest error in the findings returned by the District Magistrate. Petitioner who has been working on a contract basis cannot claim any absolute right to continue on the post in question if he has been found guilty in discharge of his duties in an inquiry held in consonance with principles of natural justice. 10. Accordingly, I decline to interfere in the matter. 11. Petition thus fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Atmesh Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad