Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 923 (JHR)

Sonali Lal v. State of Jharkhand

2016-06-14

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, VIRENDER SINGH

body2016
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. 2. The present two appellant-writ petitioners (hereinafter to be referred to as petitioners) are aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2015, whereby their joint writ petition being W.P. (S) No.2022 of 2011 stood dismissed. 3. Both the petitioners were appointed as Rojgar Sewak by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Programme Coordinator, Gumla vide letter dated 04.06.2007 and the services of both the petitioners were terminated vide order dated 23.02.2011. Aggrieved thereof, both the petitioners have filed the aforesaid writ petition. In reviewing the annual performance of the staff appointed on contract basis, it was noticed that the petitioners were absent from their duty without prior permission and were also absent in the training workshop. In all, the performance of both the petitioners in MNREGA was found unsatisfactory which created hurdles in implementation of the schemes under MNREGA. In short, it was a case of willful disobedience of the orders given by the Block Development Officer. Since the conduct of both the petitioners was found unsatisfactory, show cause notices were issued to them also, but there was no improvement in the attitude of the petitioners with regard to MNREGA work. 4. After issuance of show cause notices, the matter was taken up by the Establishment Committee headed by Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Programme Coordinator, Gumla (respondent no.2 herein), in which a decision was taken for termination of the services of the petitioners. 5. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order dated 23.02.2011 terminating the services of both the petitioners has been passed by an incompetent authority (respondent no.3) whereas, the Deputy Commissioner (respondent no.2) only, who is the appointing authority, can pass the order of termination. 6. We are not in agreement with the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners for the reason that the decision to terminate the services of the petitioners has been taken by the Establishment Committee, chaired by the Deputy Commissioner and it is thereafter, the order of termination has been conveyed to the petitioners by the respondent no.3. Therefore, there appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order on that count. 7. Therefore, there appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order on that count. 7. The other plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the performance of the petitioner no.1 namely, Chhavilal Singh Mar has been found to be satisfactory up to 75% whereas, with regard to petitioner no.2, namely, Sonali Lal, it is found to be satisfactory up to 96% and therefore, the impugned order of termination is de-hors to the performance of both the petitioners. Even this plea is not acceptable to us for the simple reason that the show cause notices were issued to both the petitioners on account of their willful absence from duty for about 25 days, creating hindrance in compliance of the projects of MNREGA and not on account of unsatisfactory performance. 8. Both the petitioners were appointed as Rojgar Sewak on contract basis for implementing certain schemes under MNREGA and once they have created obstruction in achieving the targets on account of their unauthorized absence for a reasonably good period, the order of termination of their services cannot be said to be illegal on any count. 9. Viewed thus, finding no substance in both the appeals, we decline to interfere with the impugned order. Resultantly, the appeals on hand are dismissed. 10. However, if any amount is legally due to any of the petitioners till their services were terminated, the respondent-State shall take care of that aspect and ensure the payment without any delay.