Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1255 (JHR)

Arvind Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

2013-11-21

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging order dated 09.02.2013. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The petitioner was appointed on 19.05.2010 and he discharged duties as Lab Technician from 22.05.2010 to 25.05.2011. An agreement was also executed between the parties for the period 26.05.2011 to 26.03.2012. A criminal case under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code was registered on 07.01.2013 and the petitioner was taken into custody. The petitioner was granted bail by order dated 08.01.2013. The service of the petitioner has been terminated by order dated 09.02.2013 and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed stating as under, “8. That the petitioner was appointed as Lab Technician on contractual basis by answering deponent vide memo dated 19.05.2010. Petitioner has discharged his duty between 22.05.2010 to 25.05.2011. An agreement / contract was executed between the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, West Singhbhum (Chaibasa) and this petitioner, for the period of 02.04.2011 to 01.04.2012. 9. That it is relevant to mention here that the agreement enclosed by the petitioner as Annexure-3 is false and fabricated document. On complain was received from Sudha Rani Verma (A.N.M) against this petitioner stating that during his duty hour, petitioner used to drink and misbehave the lady staff.” 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the reliance of the respondents on Clause 4 of the agreement for terminating the service of the petitioner is misplaced as it is not attracted in the present case. He has further submitted that, the impugned order of termination dated 09.02.2013 would cast a stigma on the petitioner. The ground taken in the termination order is sexually harassing a female colleague. 6. Mr. Vaibhav Kumar, J.C. to A.G., appearing for the respondents has disputed the document, that is, the copy of the agreement which has been filed in the present proceeding. He submits that, the agreement which was executed between the parties is different and a copy of which is filed as Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. He has refuted the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the order of termination would cast a stigma on the petitioner. 7. On a perusal of the documents on record I find that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis and an agreement was signed between the parties. He has refuted the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the order of termination would cast a stigma on the petitioner. 7. On a perusal of the documents on record I find that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis and an agreement was signed between the parties. The petitioner has admitted that he got himself involved in a criminal case and he was arrested. From the impugned order dated 09.02.2013, I find that the reason for dispensing with the service of the petitioner has been given as the service of the petitioner was not required. 8. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the case and accordingly, it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.