Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1340 (JHR)

Sailesh Bharati v. State of Jharkhand

2013-12-09

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
JUDGMENT By Court-The petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 06.09.2012. 2. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Rojgar Sewak on 28.03.2008 on contract basis. By order dated 06.09.2012 the service of the petitioner has been terminated. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed taking a plea that the petitioner and others had been carrying out the work under the MNREGA Scheme with the help of JCB machine and tractor. A criminal case being Devipur P.S. Case No.96 of 2011 dated 24.12.2011 under Sections 188, 420, 406, 409 & 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner and others. A letter dated 17.07.2012 written by the Block Development Officer, Deoghar has been brought on record in which various incidents of misconduct on the part of the petitioner has been brought to the notice of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 06.09.2012 has been issued terminating the service of the petitioner without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner. The letter of the Block Development Officer does not disclose the grounds on which the service of the petitioner has been sought to be terminated. He has further been submitted that the information which has been revealed in letter dated 17.07.2012 would indicate that there was no misappropriation of the government money. The service of the petitioner has been terminated contrary to the terms contained in the letter of appointment and therefore, the impugned order dated 06.09.2012 is liable to be interfered with. 6. As against the above, Ms. Nehala Sharmin, J.C. to Sr. S.C. II appearing for the respondents has submitted that an enquiry was conducted in the matter and it was found that the petitioner and others have been carrying out the work under MNREGA Scheme by illegal means and a criminal case has also been instituted against the petitioner and others. 7. On a perusal of the documents on record, I find that the appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis. The various incidents of misconduct on the part of the petitioner has been brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner by letter dated 17.07.2012. 7. On a perusal of the documents on record, I find that the appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis. The various incidents of misconduct on the part of the petitioner has been brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner by letter dated 17.07.2012. Merely because there is no allegation of any misappropriation of the government fund and the order of termination has been issued without giving any show cause notice to the petitioner, the impugned order is not liable to be inferred with. The petitioner was appointed on contract basis and a criminal case has also been instituted against the petitioner and others. 8. This writ petition lacks merit. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.