Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 198 (JHR)

Digamber Rabidas v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-31

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in memo no. 94 dated 8.3.2008, Annexure-13, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur whereby his contractual engagement as Rojgar Sevak had been terminated on account of his unsatisfactory service and in terms of the Appointment Rules of 2007 Section 11 (Cha), which governed the service conditions of such employees who are engaged on contractual basis. 3. The petitioner admittedly was engaged on contractual basis as Rojgar Sevak under the Pakur district and was posted by different orders issued vide Annexures-1, 2 and finally by 3 at the last place of his posting at Mohanpur, Gram Panchayat from where, his services had been terminated. The reasons indicated in termination of service as per the impugned order is that on complain of certain named persons of the same Panchayat, it was found that the petitioner had drawn Government money intended for payment of wages of labourers on two different dates i.e. on 31.1.2008 and 18.2.2008 and deposited it after 20 to 23 days in the Post Office for onward payment to the concerned daily wagers, which is a case of serious irregularity and violation of the Government Rules under which, such Government money could not have been kept by such a person performing the duties of Rojgar Sevak. 4. The petitioner alleges that the impugned order has been passed without any show cause or notice to him and during the period of 4.2.2008 to 3.4.2008, he was undergoing training at State Institute of Rural Development, Hehal, Ranchi and could not have been saddled with the said allegation. He, however, submits that the inquiry conducted on 4.3.2008, which is also at Annexure-12 and also, at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of the respondent, has falsely shown that the petitioner had made admission on his own part on the said date as he was already away undergoing training at Ranchi during the said period. 5. The petitioner has relied upon an information obtained under the R.T.I., which is at Annexure-14-series, from the Vananchal Gramin Bank, Torai Branch to show that on the dates 16.2.2008 and 20.1.2008, the said amount was not drawn by the present petitioner but by some other person. 5. The petitioner has relied upon an information obtained under the R.T.I., which is at Annexure-14-series, from the Vananchal Gramin Bank, Torai Branch to show that on the dates 16.2.2008 and 20.1.2008, the said amount was not drawn by the present petitioner but by some other person. Even the amount said to be drawn and deposited after a delay of 20 to 23 days have not been disclosed in the inquiry nor in the impugned order. 6. The respondents have, however, contested the claim of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner, being on contractual engagement, has no security of tenure to allege that a proper full dress inquiry should have been held before terminating his contractual engagement. It has been submitted that service conditions of the petitioner were governed by the Rule 2007, which is made for persons who were engaged on contractual basis. In the instant case, when a complaint was made before the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, the matter was inquired and a number of villagers were examined by the District Welfare Officer, Pakur and the petitioner's statement was also taken where he had admitted that he had drawn the Government money intended for payment of wages of labourers and deposited it on 22.2.2008 and 23.2.2008 i.e. after considerable delay. He himself had disclosed the amounts also, therefore, when the inquiry conducted has found the allegation to be established in which the petitioner was also allowed to make his own statement and defend himself, the impugned punishment has rightly been issued terminating his contractual engagement, which does not requires interference by exercising the writ jurisdiction. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered in the case of Nagen Hembrom vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2014(1) JLJR 64 , where the learned Single Judge has held that in the circumstances when the charges are found proved and the engagement of the person was on contractual basis, no interference was required in the order of termination of such Panchayat Rojgar Sevak. 8. reported in 2014(1) JLJR 64 , where the learned Single Judge has held that in the circumstances when the charges are found proved and the engagement of the person was on contractual basis, no interference was required in the order of termination of such Panchayat Rojgar Sevak. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the relevant materials on record including the impugned order, it is apparent that the statement of the petitioner was taken during the course of inquiry conducted on the complaint of the villagers by the District Welfare Officer, Pakur, upon order of the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur. The said inquiry report at Annexure-A shows that the petitioner had accepted the allegation that he had drawn the money from the Bank account and deposited it after a delay of 20-23 days, which was for payment of Daily Wages Labourers under the MANREGA Scheme. 9. Though the petitioner has alleged that he was away during the said period for undergoing training but the documents, which have been brought on record by way of an affidavit i.e. inquiry report, appears to be genuine and authentic in which the petitioner signature is also present and he has accepted his such act. The document at Annexure-14 series itself cannot be relied because no account number of any such account from which such withdrawal has been shown to be made by another person is furnished under the information furnished under R.T.I. from the Vananchal Gramin Bank, Torai. 10. The petitioner, otherwise, was under a contractual engagement where no security of tenure like a Government employee can be attached to his engagement. On the establishment of serious violation of the Government Rules and irregularities in withdrawal of the Government money intended for disbursement to Daily Wages Labourers under the MANREGA Scheme, the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur has rightly issued the order of termination from contractual engagement, which need not to be interfered in the facts and circumstances, discussed above, in the writ jurisdiction. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.