Jharkhand High Court
Dhirendra Kumar vs Collectariate on 21 July, 2014
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 4361 of 2013
...
Dhirendra Kumar ... ...Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
The State of Jharkhand and Ors. ... ...Respondents
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Amarendra Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondents : - M/s JC to GP-IV
....
02/21.07.2014Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By the impugned order contained at Annexure-7, dated 17.11.2012 issued by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Programme Coordinator, Koderma, the petitioner's contractual appointment as Rojgar Sevak in Satgawan Block, has been terminated inter alia on having found prima facie case of embezzlement, tampering with official records and serious irregularities in MGNREGA work.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order has been issued without any show notice to the petitioner though it is punitive in nature and entails stigma in his career and also affect future employment in any other organization. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
The petitioner is said to have been appointed as Rojgar Sevak vide Memo dated 29.04.2008 issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Koderma and posted at Satgawan Block.
According to the respondents, under the terms of appointment letter and posting vide Annexure-4 dated 17.06.2008, in case of unsatisfactory work being found against any of such persons like the petitioner engaged on contractual basis, their contract of service could be terminated at any point of time. Therefore, according to the respondents, by the impugned order his contractual engagement has been terminated as during the course of inspection on 17.11.2012, by the District Authorities, it was found that a prima facie of case of defalcation of public money in collusion with Mukhiya, Panchayat Sewak, Junior Engineer and others is made out. A case was lodged against the accused persons being Satgawan P. S. Case No. 80 of 2012 under the provisions of under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 472 of the Indian Penal Code. The dismissal of the petitioner could only be termination of his contract on violation of contractual terms and conditions for which no show cause was desirable to be served.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the relevant materials on record, it appears that the impugned order at Annexure-7 dated 17.11.2012 terminating the petitioner's contractual appointment is punitive in nature and also inflicts serious stigma upon him as it has been alleged therein that prima facie the petitioner was found to have indulged in acts of embezzlement, tampering of official records and irregularities in the execution of MGNREGA work. It was found that MGNREGA works were being executed through machine and payments on muster rolls have been made in an illegal manner. However, it is evident that before issuance of such punitive order casting stigma upon the petitioner which has adverse consequences upon his future employment, no notice or opportunity to the petitioner to show cause was issued. Terminating of the service of a contractual employee can be made in accordance with terms and conditions of contractual engagement, however, if such an order of termination is passed in punitive manner attaching stigma upon the person concerned then the requirement of natural justice have to be necessarily held as inbuilt before such an order is passed. Therefore, the impugned order cannot survive the test of Article 14 and apparently is arbitrary failing to comply the principle of natural justice. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed so far as it concerns the petitioner. The respondents, however, are at liberty to take a fresh decision in the matter after giving due notice to show cause.
The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid manner.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/