Meghalaya High Court
Shri Riaz Uddin vs State Of Meghalaya And Ors on 1 May, 2015
Author: Sr Sen
Bench: Sr Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 331 of 2014
Shri Riaz Uddin,
S/o Shri M Haque,
R/o West Pathorkata village,
PO Paham,
West Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya. : Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Meghalaya represented by
The Commissioner,
C & RD Department,
Government of Meghalaya,
Shillong.
2. Deputy Commissioner,
West Garo Hills District,
Tura, Meghalaya.
3. Block Development Officer &
Programme Officer, MGNREGS,
Selsella C & RD Block,
West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
4. Shri Jahirul Islam Sarkar,
Gaonbura,
R/O West Pathorkata village
P/O Paham,
West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
5. Shri Jaydul Islam Sarkar,
President West Pathorkata
Village Employment Council,
R/O West Pathorkata village
PO Paham, West Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya.
6. Shri Nur Hussain,
Secretary West Pathorkata Village,
Employment Council,
R/O West Pathorkata Village,
PO Paham, West Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya.
7. Smti Soyaton Bibi,
Women Member West Pathorkata,
Village Employment Council,
R/O West Pathorkata Village,
PO Paham, West Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya.
Page 1 of 5
8. Dr. D Roy,
C/o Veterinary and Animal Husbandry,
East Khasi Hills District, Shillong.
Ex-Block Development Officer & Programme
Officer, MGNREGS, Selsella C & RD Block,
West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
: Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SR SEN
For the petitioner : Mr. S Dey,
Ms. QB Lamare
Advocates
For the respondents : Mr S Sen Gupta, GA
Date of hearing : 01.05.2015
Date of Judgment and Order : 01.05.2015
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. S Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S Sen Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents.
2. The brief facts of the case in a nutshell is "that the petitioner was elected as the Secretary to West Pathorkata Village Employment Council, West Garo Hills District, by an over whelming majority under section 7A(5) of Meghalaya Employment Guarantee Scheme (MREGS) 2006, and in consideration of such election the petitioner was appointed by the respondent as the Secretary of Village Employment Council of the said village vide Order No.SEL.APPT.125/NREGS/ORDER/2012-13/533; dated Selsella the 9th Sept., 2013 issued by the BDO & Programme Officer, MGNREGS, Selsella C & RD Block, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya and is discharging his duties for the betterment of the villagers without any complaint from any corner of the village or by the Job Card Holders of the said village . The vested interest person in collusion with the respondents particularly the respondent No.8 (Ex-Block Development Officer & Programme Officer, MGNREGS, Selsella C & RD Block, Page 2 of 5 West Garo Hills District Meghalaya) and respondent No.4 has conspired to remove the petitioner from the post of Secretary village under Selsella C & RD Block, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya and plant their representative in place of the petitioner, since the petitioner has failed to complied with the illegal demands of the respondent No.4 and respondent No.8. The respondent No.4, without any authority or any sanction conducted a meeting of the villagers wherein certain resolutions were passed in the so called meeting at the back of the petitioner. Acting upon the said minutes of the meeting, the petitioner was removed without any show cause and at the back of the petitioner, thereby violating the principal of natural justice. The petitioner was never intimated about the said meeting nor was any date fixed by any of the respondents for conducting the said meeting or election, whereby the petitioner and other job card holders were deprived from contesting the so called election. The respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were appointed by the respondent authorities without following the Scheme of National Rural Employments Guarantee Act, 2005."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr S Dey, submits that petitioner herein was appointed initially as Secretary of Village Employment Council at West Pathokata, West Garo Hills, and on the basis of a mere complaint he was removed from the post without any enquiry or any show cause and without following the guidelines of MREGS.
4. Subsequently, an enquiry was conducted by the SDO Dadenggre, West Garo Hills, Tura and found him to be innocent. Mr S Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the said enquiry report in Court and the Court Master is directed to put the said report on record. The petitioner thereafter approached the BDO concerned for his reinstatement to the post but he refused to reinstate the petitioner on the plea that the instant writ petition is pending before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed for necessary direction.
Page 3 of 5
5. On the other hand, Mr S Sen Gupta, learned State counsel, submits that he has no objection if the matter is disposed of and the petitioner is reinstated. When this Court put a question that why some cost should not be imposed on the officer concerned who has removed him without enquiry and show cause, his reply was that petitioner was not receiving regular salary from the Government, so he is not entitle to any cost or compensation.
6. I have also perused the enquiry report dated 5.2.2015 submitted by the SDO Civil, Dadenggre, West Garo Hills, Tura, to the Deputy Commissioner, West Garo Hills, Tura. The said report is reproduced herein below:-
" Government of Meghalaya Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer(Civil) Dadenggre Civil Sub-Division, West Garo Hills No. DCS.35/MNREGS/2010-2014/Pt-II/19 Dt. 05.02.2015 To, The Deputy Commissioner West Garo Hills, Tura.
Sub Enquiry report - MGNREGA - Pathorkata West Selsella Block Regarding Ref Order No. WGH/NREGS/AD 217/09/Pt-VI/275 O/o Deputy Commissioner & District Programme Coordinator, West Garo Hills Tura Dt 28th October, 2014.
Sir, In pursuance of the orders issued in the reference cited, I have the honour to submit herewith my enquiry report in connection with the complaint against the previous the secretary of the VEC of the village Pathorkata West.
The enquiry was conducted on 18.11.14 and both the parties were present during the enquiry. Additional detail from the O/o the Block Development Officer, Selsella were observed for the purpose of this inquiry. It is pertinent to note that the complaint was made against the then VEC Secretary, Shri Riaz Uddin. He is currently not holding this position. For the purpose of this inquiry a detailed interaction with the public was conducted. It was observed that the job card holders in the village were divided into two groups and were expressing divergent opinions in this regard.
Hence payment register was examined to ascertain the truth in the complaint about the discrepancy in the wage distribution to the job card holders. Payment register was found to be in proper order and as per payment register job card holders got Rs, 1740 and this inquiry could not find any documentary evidence in support of the complaint about the payment of wages to job card holders.
With regard to the road construction from Pathorkata village to Hatidura under MGNREGS, sit inspection was done and it was found that the work had been as per sanction done and relevant photograph of the work is enclosed along with this report. Hence, the complaint may be disposed off accordingly. Further, this inquiry has found the prevalent practice of contradictory public resolutions in a village though out this region including this village. In this connection, this inquiry officer feels that a job card holders resolution without the representative of the Block Page 4 of 5 Development Officer should not be considered valid. Necessary instructions may kindly be issued to the Block Development Officers in this regard.
Sd/-
Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Dadenggre, West Garo Hills, Tura."
7. On perusal of the said report no where it appears that any anomalies has been established against the petitioner. If it is so, his removal from the post without enquiry and show cause was totally illegal and indirectly the officer who has terminated him has caused damage to him.
8. We must remember that no one should act on mere complaint without examining thoroughly and giving an opportunity of being heard and show cause and proper enquiry. One must not forget that removing a person from his post or dismiss him from service is bound to bring mental agony and suffering and it is not only the affected person but his entire family suffers the damage. Therefore, I am of the view that he should be given certain compensation along with reinstatement with immediate effect. I hereby impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) on respondent No.8. The said amount is to be paid to the petitioner forthwith and the petitioner to be reinstated forthwith. The said amount should be paid from the salary of respondent No.8 so that there will be no loss from the Government exchequer.
9. With these observations and directions this writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE dr Page 5 of 5