Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1413 (JHR)

Awani Kant Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2015-11-05

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner was under contractual engagement as Rojgar Sewak in the district of Deoghar having been appointed through Annexure-1 in March, 2008. It appears that he served in Jamuasol Panchayat, Sarath Block of the district Deoghar from where he was transferred vide Annexure-2 and 3 to Pathardha Panchayat. Annexure-2 is dated 21.09.2012, Annexure-3 dated 15.10.2012 was issued by the Block Development Officer, Sarath. His services have been terminated vide impugned order at Annexure-5 bearing memo no. 212 dated 06.02.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Programme Coordinator, Deoghar on the ground that he has been found lacking in diligence in execution of MNREGA work in Sarath Block, as per the report of the Block Development Officer, Sarath contained in letter dated 18.12.2012. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after issuance of show cause notice upon him for unauthorized absence on 02.02.2013 by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar, Annexure-4 to which he was supposed to respond by 08.02.2013, the order of termination has been passed even before that day on 06.02.2013 itself without taking into account any explanation on his part. It is submitted that therefore, principles of natural justice have been violated. He also submits that Block Development Officer is not the competent authority to issue any show cause notice upon him as has been made out through Annexure -C series to the counter affidavit. It is further submitted that he has been transferred to Pathardha Panchayat only on 15.10.2012 and within three and half months only, he has been held to be lacking in diligence in execution of his work without giving him sufficient time to show his performance in the said panchayat. Therefore, the impugned order is wholly arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and should be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to representation at Annexures-6 and 7 to show that he had approached Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and Commissioner, Santhal Pargana with evidence of his satisfactory performance in the respective financial years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 as also in the year 2012-13 in execution of work alloted to him. These factors have not been considered while terminating the petitioner from his engagement. 5. As per the respondent's affidavit, petitioner was posted as Rojgar Sewak in Sarath Block on 28.03.2008 after his appointment on contractual basis. These factors have not been considered while terminating the petitioner from his engagement. 5. As per the respondent's affidavit, petitioner was posted as Rojgar Sewak in Sarath Block on 28.03.2008 after his appointment on contractual basis. Block Development Officer, Sarath earlier also informed the Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar through letter no. 1297/B dated 18.12.2012 that petitioner and one other Rojgar Sewak had been found to be absent during work of social audit in their panchayat. He was asked to submit show cause vide letter no. 1062/B dated 19.10.2012. Similarly the other Rojgar Sewak was also asked to show cause by the letter of the same date. However, no reply to the show cause was submitted on behalf of the petitioner till 18.12.2012. It was also found that petitioner and another person did not reside at their panchayat and are negligent in the work of MNREGA. Petitioner was found lacking in due diligence in duty. Block Development Officer, Sarath requested the respondent no. 3, Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar to take disciplinary action against them. It is further submitted that Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar upon consideration of letter no. 1297/B dated 18.12.2012 of the Block Development Officer, Sarath has passed the order of termination of both Rojgar Sewaks including the petitioner as impugned in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that contention of the petitioner that he was deprived of the opportunity to explain his case is palpably false as he was served letters to show cause on 28.09.2012 as also on 19.10.2012 which he received on 05.10.2012 and 07.11.2012 as per the extracts of the dispatch register enclosed to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner, who was under the terms of his contract on being found negligent in duty and execution of work, has been terminated from service after due opportunity to show cause by the impugned order, which does not require interference. 6. Considered the rival submissions of the parties in light of the background facts pleaded. The impugned order of termination is based upon the report of the Block Development Officer, Sarath contained in memo no. 1297/B dated 18.12.2012, which related to lack of diligence in execution of work by the petitioner and another person after giving due show cause notice to the petitioner vide Annexure-C dated 28.09.2012 bearing memo no. 948 and dated 19.10.2012 bearing memo no. 1297/B dated 18.12.2012, which related to lack of diligence in execution of work by the petitioner and another person after giving due show cause notice to the petitioner vide Annexure-C dated 28.09.2012 bearing memo no. 948 and dated 19.10.2012 bearing memo no. 1062 for the allegation relating to his posting at Jamuasol Panchayat. Petitioner cannot allege that he has not received those notices of show cause, since as per the extracts of the dispatch register enclosed to counter affidavit, receipt of the show cause by him is shown on 05.10.2012 and 07.11.2012. Both the show cause show that petitioner was found absent in the public hearing and during the course of social audit work. There was lack of progress in MIM on the part of the petitioner, neither was any list of social audit provided to the Block Development Officer, Sarath. Show cause itself indicated that on failure to give satisfactory explanation, recommendation for cancellation of the contract can also be made. Petitioner apparently never thought necessary to respond to show cause notices and the Block Development Officer, Sarath in discharge of his duty found it appropriate to bring it to the notice of the higher authority i.e. Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar. That show cause notice and the report formed the basis for passing of the impugned order by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Programme Coordinator, Deoghar dated 06.02.2013 contained in memo no. 212. It clearly records that petitioner and other Rojgar Sewak were found to be failing in their responsibility in execution of various MNREGA Project. This was in contravention of the terms of the contractual engagement. Therefore, it is not justifiable for the petitioner to contend that the impugned order has been passed without adequate opportunity to him as the annexure-4 was issued on 02.02.2013 only i.e. few days before passing of the impugned order. 7. It is not out of place to observe here that work relating to National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme and MNREGA are carried out at Block Level through these Rojgar Sewaks, who have onerous responsibility to execute the same. The terms of contract also show that their services can be terminated by a notice of one week if such a person is found contravening the terms and conditions of the engagement. The terms of contract also show that their services can be terminated by a notice of one week if such a person is found contravening the terms and conditions of the engagement. It is also evident that person appointed on the post of Rojgar Sewak like the petitioner are required to work under the Block Development Officer and carry out the works alloted to them as per the direction of the Block Development Officer. If the Block Development Officer has found lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner in the execution of work and absence in important meetings or social audit work, it cannot be said that he had no authority to issue show cause notice upon him like was done vide Annexure-C series. 8. In sum and substance, the order impugned cannot be said to be suffering from violation of principles of natural justice or is arbitrary. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.