JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J - Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 11.07.2013 by which the petitioner has been disengaged from the post of Grama Rozgar Sevak (in short G.R.S.), Babupalli Grama Panchayat under Binka Block w.e.f. 11.07.2013. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he has been selected to be engaged as GRS vide order dated 26.12.2006. Thereafter the petitioner was continuing on contract basis by virtue of an agreement extending time to time year wise. 4. The last extension of agreement was made by virtue of an agreement entered on 1.1.2013, period of which was valid up to 31.12.2013. During subsistence period of agreement, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 2.4.2013 providing an opportunity of giving reply regarding misconduct/inefficiency in discharging of his duty as GRS asking to explain as to why he be not disengaged as the GRS. He was required to give reply within seven days. The petitioner has given due reply defending himself by saying that he has not at fault rather it is due to non-cooperation of the Grama Panchayat in not approving and not issuing appropriate order in time, the target has not been achieved by him. 5. The petitioner has been disengaged on 11.07.2013, challenging the order of disengagement has filed this writ petition wherein interim order has been passed vide order dated 29.08.2013 directing him to continue till the next date, if the contract period is not over. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that he has continued till 31.12.2013 but now he is out of job due to non-extension of the agreement. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken several grounds for assailing the disengagement order he refers to a communication issued by the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Odisha dated 5.12.2012 contained in Letter No. 21161 addressed to all Collectors-cum-D.P.C. and other officials directing them not to put GRS under suspension rather disengage them if anything is found against them which leads to misconduct/inefficiency but provide them reasonable opportunity of being heard before disengagement. 8. of Odisha dated 5.12.2012 contained in Letter No. 21161 addressed to all Collectors-cum-D.P.C. and other officials directing them not to put GRS under suspension rather disengage them if anything is found against them which leads to misconduct/inefficiency but provide them reasonable opportunity of being heard before disengagement. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that intent of the communication dated 5.12.2012 is not only to issue a show cause notice but to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard before disengagement if the GRS is to be disengaged on the ground of misconduct or inefficiency. 9. There is no dispute that a show cause notice has been issued, the petitioner has given reply but that has not been taken into consideration before passing the order dated 11.07.2013. Hence the order passed by the Collector-cum-C.E.O. cannot be said to be in consonance with the communication dated 5.12.2012 which provides to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard before disengagement on the ground if the authorities wants to disengage GRS on the ground of misconduct/inefficiency. 10. He submits that the word 'reasonable' has got wide implication it does not mean merely by way of issuing show cause notice the requirement has been fulfilled. If there is an intent to issue show cause notice which itself suggests that the authority who is asking a reply from an employee or the worker, the simple meaning is that the same would be considered by proper application of mind. He further submits that unreasoned order amounts to miscarriage of justice and it is also one of the parts of violation of principle of natural justice. He further submits that since the order impugned 11.7.2013 is punitive which will create hurdle for future engagement of the petitioner. A thoughtful consideration ought to have been given by the authority before passing order of disengagement by proper consideration of the reply given by the petitioner. 11. He further submits that since the order impugned 11.7.2013 is punitive which will create hurdle for future engagement of the petitioner. A thoughtful consideration ought to have been given by the authority before passing order of disengagement by proper consideration of the reply given by the petitioner. 11. He fairly submits that the petitioner since was engaged by way of contractual engagement by virtue of agreement he has got no legal vested right to continue when the authority has to take a decision to disengage from service on the ground of misconduct or inefficiency, the ground which has been taken by the petitioner in the reply to show cause notice ought to have been taken into consideration because the petitioner has taken a specific ground that he is not at fault for not achieving target fixed rather it is on the level of the Grama Panchayat, the petitioner was working as GRS has not given full cooperation hence the target has not achieved. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this aspect of the matter ought to have been taken into consideration by the Collector because the whole aim of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (in short 'MGNREGS') is to provide facilities of employment in the remotest area until and unless all the officials, all the workers will cooperate, required achievement cannot be achieved. When the petitioner has raised a question regarding non-cooperation at the level of Grama Panchayat, it ought to have been taken into consideration by the Collector so that accountability might have been fixed upon erring officials or the workers who are not working sincerely in rightful achievement of the Scheme in question. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently oppose the prayer advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has got no legal vested right to continue in service because the petitioner has been appointed by virtue of an agreement for a certain tenure, the moment tenure has been lapsed he cannot claim as a matter of right to continue in service. He further contends that the requirement of principle of natural justice has been fulfilled by issuing show cause notice to the petitioner which has been replied and has been considered and thereafter order of disengagement dated 11.07.2013 has been passed. 14. Heard the parties and perused the documents on record. 15. He further contends that the requirement of principle of natural justice has been fulfilled by issuing show cause notice to the petitioner which has been replied and has been considered and thereafter order of disengagement dated 11.07.2013 has been passed. 14. Heard the parties and perused the documents on record. 15. There is no tenure as would be evident from the fact that the petitioner was working under a scheme having been engaged as GRS to discharge certain duties for proper implementation of MGNREGS. 16. The petitioner was initially engaged in the year 2006 and continued till 11.07.2013 by virtue of extension of period of agreement, but however, after 11.07.2013, he continued till 31.12.2013 by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court. Thereafter agreement has not been extended. 17. There is no legal vested right upon an employee who has been appointed for a certain period. But the authorities like Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department has issued direction on 5.12.2012 (Annexure-8) asking officers to disengage in case of misconduct/inefficiency but give them reasonable opportunity of being heard. 18. There is no dispute that a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, the petitioner has given due reply defending himself that he is not at all fault as has been alleged in the show cause notice rather he has not been cooperated with other workers who had posted at Grama Panchayat as such required target has not been achieved hence he requested the authorities to consider this aspect of the matter who permitted him to perform his duty. 19. On perusal of the order dated 11.07.2013 passed by the Collector-cum-C.E.O., the petitioner has been disengaged after giving finding to the effect that the reply submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory. 20. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that a contract worker having been engaged by virtue of an agreement cannot claim any right for initiation of regular departmental proceeding even there is no requirement of show cause notice if disengagement is simplicitor then there is no requirement even to any show cause notice in the matter of contractual engagement like this. 21. 21. But of course in case the authority has taken decision on the ground of misconduct/inefficiency, merely issuance of show cause notice will not serve the purpose hence, keeping this in mind the Commissioner-cum-secretary, Panchayati Raj Department has directed all Collectors and other officials to provide them reasonable opportunity of being heard before disengagement if decision has to be taken on the ground of misconduct or inefficiency. 22. The MGNREGS under which the petitioner has been engaged as GRS, aim of this Scheme is to provide minimum employment opportunity to the people who are living in the remotest area of the country. This Scheme cannot be achieved if all the officers/workers involved in the Scheme will not work with full cooperation and with all sincerity. If a target which has been fixed is not being achieved by a worker before taking any penal action against the said worker it is the duty of the authority to look into the accountability and the sincerity part of other workers. 23. This can only be done when the authority will apply his mind before taking any penal action against one or other workers which can only be possible if the authority assigned with the power to disengage will apply his mind on the ground of having been raised by the worker in the reply to show cause notice. This can only be happened if the concerned worker can be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. 24. Although, steps have been taken in this case for providing reasonable opportunity of being heard by issuing a shoes cause notice but the ultimate aim of providing reasonable opportunity as would be evident from communication dated 11.07.2013 and in one line the Collector-cum-C.E.O. has said that reply submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory. This is not the sufficient requirement of law. When the higher authority like Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department has directed all officials to provide them all reasonable opportunity of being heard which itself suggests that the authority who supposed to pass an order will provide reasonable opportunity of being heard. 25. The word 'reasonable' has got wide implication which includes personal hearing and also proper consideration of the reply. 26. 25. The word 'reasonable' has got wide implication which includes personal hearing and also proper consideration of the reply. 26. From perusal of the order dated 11.07.2013, there is no consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner and in one line it has found not to be satisfactory, thereafter order of disengagement has been passed. 27. Admittedly, order of disengagement has been passed on the ground of misconduct/inefficiency levelled against the petitioner which cannot be said to be simplicitor rather it is punitive. 28. The moment any punitive order is to be passed a thoughtful consideration is supposed to be given by the concerned authority which is basis of a penal order. 29. When the petitioner is raising a pertinent question regarding accountability of other worker who are posted at Grama Panchayat level, the Collector ought to have conducted an enquiry by issuing show cause notice to the other workers for coming into rightful conclusion who are erring persons in not achieving the target, but it has not been done. 30. By disengaging a worker on the ground of non-fulfilment of achievement without assessing accountability of other employees, if appointed the required target cannot be achieved. 31. Be that as it may, the requirement of law is that if any penal decision is being taken by the authority it ought to have considered. Considered means thoughtful consideration. In this context reference of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman, LIC of India and Others Vs. A. Masilamani, (2013) 136 FLR 81 : (2013) LLR 301 : (2012) 11 SCALE 413 : (2013) 6 SCC 530 : (2013) 2 SCT 283 wherein at para-19 their Lordships have been pleased to observe as follows:-- "19. The word "consider" is of great significance. The dictionary meaning of the same is, "to think over", "to regard as", or "deem to be". Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term "consider" postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order." 32. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order." 32. It is settled that unreasonable order without assigning any reason cannot be said to be order in accordance with law. Non-speaking order attract violation of principle of natural justice. In this respect, reference of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court is worth to be seen in the case of S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 : (1990) CriLJ 2148(1) : (1990) 3 JT 630 : (1990) 4 SCC 594 : (1990) 1 SCR 44 Supp : (1991) 1 SLJ 1 held as follows:-- "xxx Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities.xxx " 33. In totality and considering entire facts and circumstances, order dated 11.07.2013 cannot be said to be order in accordance with law being non-speaking, being without consideration of the reply given by the petitioner, being contrary to the communication dated 5.12.2012 (Annexure-8). In view thereof, the order dated 11.07.2013 is hereby quashed. 34. Collector-cum-C.E.O., Subarnapur is directed to look into the matter afresh and take an appropriate decision in the light of the reply given by the petitioner in terms of the show cause fix accountability of the erring officials/workers and proceed accordingly keeping in mind the fact that ultimate end is to achieve mission of MGNREGS. 35. This Court is not expressing any view upon extension and non-extension of contract period which is entirely domain of the Collector. With such observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Final Result : Disposed off