Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1557 (JHR)

Chavilal Singh Mar v. State of Jharkhand

2015-12-14

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2015
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the accompanied writ application, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for quashing the order dated 23.2.2011 issued by the respondent no. 3 pertaining to termination from services. 2. Sans details, the facts as described in the writ application, in brief is that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were appointed as Rojgar Sewak by the respondent no. 2 for the Panchayat of Baridih and Armai respectively situated in the district of Gumla in pursuance to the letter dated 4.6.2007 issued by State Government vide order dated 27.8.2007. After the said appointment the petitioners were discharging their duties to the utmost satisfaction of their superior authorities. Due to unsatisfactory work the services of the petitioners were terminated by respondent no. 2 by order dated 23.2.2011 vide Annexure-2 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of termination dated 23.2.2011, the petitioners left with no alternative and efficacious remedy approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of their grievance. 3. Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been inter alia submitted that the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi issued a letter dated 22.10.2008 that the renewal/extension of the services of the officer/staff appointed on contract basis will be done by a district level appointment committee which will review the annual performance of the officer/staff appointed on contract basis. If the performance of any officer/staff is found to be satisfactory then the renewal/extension shall be done otherwise in case of unsatisfactory performance the services of the officer/staff will not be renewed/extended and accordingly, the services shall be terminated a' per Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla issued a letter dated 14.8.2007 to the petitioner, in which it was mentioned that the officer/staff who has been appointed on contract basis can be terminated. It has been submitted that the Block Development Officer, Chainpur vide letter dated 8.2.2010 requested the respondent no. 2 (Deputy Commissioner, Gumla) to cancel the contract of the petitioner no. 1 who was absent from his duty without prior permission and was also absent in the training workshop. It has been submitted that the Block Development Officer, Chainpur vide letter dated 8.2.2010 requested the respondent no. 2 (Deputy Commissioner, Gumla) to cancel the contract of the petitioner no. 1 who was absent from his duty without prior permission and was also absent in the training workshop. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter dated 8.2.2010 issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Gumla. It has further been submitted that the performance of the petitioner in MNREGA is unsatisfactory from all aspects and were suffering hardship and provisions of MGNREGA were not being complied due to his gross negligence and wilful disobedience of orders given by Block Development Officer. Since performance of the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory and another show cause bearing letter dated 13.10.2010 was issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Gumla to the petitioner but no reply was given by the petitioner. Again Block Development Officer, Chainpur issued a show cause vide letter dated 30.11.2010 in which it has been mentioned that there has been no improvement in the attitude of the petitioner in MGNREGA work. Similarly, so far petitioner no. 2 is concerned on finding unsatisfactory performance, the Block Development Officer, Gumla issued a show cause vide letter dated 11.6.2009 but no reply was given by the petitioner. Again Block Development Officer, Gumla issued a show cause vide letter dated 3.7.2009 wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner is not performing the MGNREGA work properly and is violating the provisions of MGNREGA. 4. Heard Mr. Md. Kaisar Alam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo-G.P.-IV appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously urged before this Court that despite the performance of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 found to be satisfactory, the respondents without giving any justifiable reason have terminated the services of the petitioners, it has been pointed out in the rejoinder affidavit that so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned his services has been found to be satisfactory up to 75% whereas petitioner no. 2 appears to be satisfactory up to 96% and the impugned order of termination is violation of Articles 14, 16 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 6. 1 is concerned his services has been found to be satisfactory up to 75% whereas petitioner no. 2 appears to be satisfactory up to 96% and the impugned order of termination is violation of Articles 14, 16 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has assiduously urged before this Court that despite issuance of show cause no reply has been given by the petitioners and by passing the impugned order of termination, respondents have not violated the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the State has drawn the attention of Court to the relevant minutes of the meeting wherein establishment committee has taken decision on the work performance of the petitioners. Therefore, there has been no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 23.2.2011 passed by the respondents authorities. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the impugned order, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference by this Court due to the following facts and reasons: - (I) Admittedly, as per the facts disclosed in the writ application the performance of the petitioners as Gram Rojgar' Sewak were found to be unsatisfactory and show cause notice has been issued prior to the order of termination. Therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice calling for any interference by this Court. (II) Moreover, as per the Clause-11 vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, wherein it is envisaged that in a case of unsatisfactory performance by an employee without notice the services can be terminated. Since, in the instant case the services of the petitioners has been terminated after compliance of the principles of natural justice, no irregularity or illegality can be found out in the impugned order of termination. 8. On cumulative effect of the facts and reasons, the impugned order of termination dated 23.2.2011 vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition, does not warrant any interference of this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.