ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner was appointed on contractual basis as Block Programme Officer at a consolidated honorarium of Rs.10,000/- by office order dated 1st February 2008 bearing memo no.161 for a period of one year. On satisfactory execution of work the contract would be renewable for further one year, otherwise it would be deemed to have come to an end. Deputy Commissioner would be the controlling officer (Annexure-1). He was allotted Palamau District. By an office order dated 15th February 2008 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau (Annexure-2) he was posted at Lesliganj Block on 6th February 2008. By order of the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau he was relieved from 21st September 2010 to join on the same post at Sadar Block, Medininagar vide Annexure-3 bearing memo no.1042 dated 18th September 2010. He was released for joining at Lesliganj Block again w.e.f. 13th June 2011 vide order bearing memo no.109 dated 13th June 2011 issued by the Block Development Officer-cum-Chief Programme Officer, Sadar, Medininagar. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau inquired into the allegation of irregularity in execution of MNREGA Project under Gram Panchayat, Hartuwa being Project No.23/2008-09 and 08/2010-11, the latter project having been executed within a period of one year. In execution of the project one Arvind Shukla and Bigawan Shukla, both Home Guards and job holders, were shown as labourer who had worked on the same date at some other places in relation to another project of MNREGA and had also received wages for that period. There was error in the data entry in job card in the name of Pyari Yadav and Shrawan Yadav. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau found the Junior Engineer, Panchayat Sewak, Mukhiya of this Gram Panchayat, Gram Rojgar Sewak and Meth prima-facie responsible for the said irregularity. In respect of Block Development Officer and the petitioner- Block Programme Officer, Lesliganj it was found that due to lack of supervision and verification of data entry such irregularity happened for which these two persons were also responsible. Accordingly, a show-cause was issued vide memo no.332 dated 5th February 2013 (Annexure-5) by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Programme Coordinator, Palamau upon the petitioner and others to explain as to why fine of Rs.1,000/- under MNREGA Act be not imposed and further disciplinary action be not taken against them. 4. Accordingly, a show-cause was issued vide memo no.332 dated 5th February 2013 (Annexure-5) by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Programme Coordinator, Palamau upon the petitioner and others to explain as to why fine of Rs.1,000/- under MNREGA Act be not imposed and further disciplinary action be not taken against them. 4. Petitioner replied thereto vide Annexure-6 dated 22.02.2013 stating that Project No.08/2010-11 was taken up as the road had been cut at different places by the villagers for exit of water during Monsoon and had become unmotorable for vehicles. The project was taken up in public interest by Gram Sabha which has been taken note of at page-126 serial no. 1376 of the annual work projects. In respect of allegation no.2 it was stated that the Rojgar Sewak and the Meth had recommended that these two persons had worked under the instant project which was certified by the Meth and the Rojgar Sewak. Arvind Shukla was the Mukhiya who had worked as Meth Mazdoor and payments were made through post office. Attendance is recorded by the Meth which can be verified from the Muster Roll of the said project. All payments have been made by Mr. Shukla. He had never stated being a Home Guard. He had remained at the place of work during its execution. Photographs of the site of the project may be verified for that purpose which could deny their presence in relation to any other work at any other place. He therefore prayed for being exonerated of the charges. 5. The Deputy Commissioner in his order bearing memo no.346 dated 4th March 2013 found that no show-cause had been submitted by any of these persons even after three weeks of the issuance of the order dated 5th February 2013. As such a fine of Rs.1,000/- was imposed on the Block Development Officer, Lesliganj; Junior Engineer, Panchayat Sewak, Gram Panchayat Mukhiya, Gram Rojgar Sewak and Arvind Shukla Meth under -3- Section 25 of the MNREGA Act vide memo no.346 dated 4th March 2013 (Annexure-7). The order was further modified on 13th March 2013 stating that the name of the petitioner had inadvertently been left out from the order imposing fine dated 4th March 2013. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 23rd March 2013 took note of the show-cause filed by the concerned persons including the petitioner and recommended the following action against each of them. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 23rd March 2013 took note of the show-cause filed by the concerned persons including the petitioner and recommended the following action against each of them. A warning was issued against the Block Development Officer, Lesliganj to be careful in the selection of projects in future and sending such proposals. Recommendation was made to the Commissioner, Palamau Division for disengagement of the Block Programme Officer i.e. the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau recommended for framing of chargesheet under Prapatra ‘Ka’ against the Junior Engineer and also the Panchayat Sewak, Hartuwa Panchayat. The Gram Rojgar Sewak and the Meth were disengaged from their contractual engagement. Recommendations were made to the Department of Panchayati Raj for initiating action for termination of the tenure of Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Hartuwa. Further recommendation was made for recovery of the amounts spent on the project under the Public Demand Recovery Act from the Gram Panchayat by the Block Development Officer, Lesliganj. 6. Based on such recommendation, the Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medininagar has passed the impugned order (Annexure-11) bearing memo no.150 dated 31st December 2014 whereunder the services of the petitioner have been terminated with immediate effect with salary for one month in lieu of the notice period. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order inter-alia on the grounds that the petitioner though was engaged on contractual basis, but after due selection process without any definite tenure. As such, his services should not have been disengaged without proper enquiry and opportunity to defend. The charges were not specific for that matter which put the petitioner to disadvantage in offering a proper reply in his defence. Petitioner had throughout this period been relieved from Lesliganj to join at Sadar, Daltonganj and thereafter again relieved to join at Lesliganj Block. The charges fail to show as to on which date alleged misconduct occurred. The petitioner has been imposed two penalties- one fine and the other disengagement from service itself. The penalty imposed is also not uniform as certain other employees have not been disengaged. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the State has taken the Court to the sequence of facts to defend the impugned action. He submits that the petitioner’s engagement was contractual and did not have a security of tenure like a regular employee of the State Government. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the State has taken the Court to the sequence of facts to defend the impugned action. He submits that the petitioner’s engagement was contractual and did not have a security of tenure like a regular employee of the State Government. On performance of satisfactory service only, the contract could be renewed for one year. If the contract was not renewed, it would automatically come to an end. Since petitioner’s engagement was contractual, there was no scope of any full dress departmental proceeding for taking such an action. However, Deputy Commissioner, Palamau after inquiry, framed the charges and allowed opportunity to the petitioner and all others to submit their show-cause in defence. Petitioner’s show-cause was also considered, but not found to be satisfactory. Persons like the petitioner, Gram Rojgar Sewak and Meth who were also engaged on contractual basis, have been disengaged, while proper departmental proceedings under charge-sheet have been recommended against other regular Government employees like the Junior Engineer and the Panchayat Sewak. The Block Development Officer has also not been left to go scot-free and has been imposed with a warning. Due compliance of natural justice has been done. The Commissioner, being the appointing authority, has passed the order after due consideration of the allegations, show-cause of the petitioner and the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Programme Co-ordinator, Palamau. As such, order impugned does not suffer from any illegality or lack of consideration of relevant materials on record or violation of principles of natural justice. 9. I have considered the submissions of the parties at length and taken note of the relevant material facts on record as above. As the sequence of the facts and documents referred to above reveal the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis for a period of one year on a fixed honorarium of Rs. 10,000/- per month with a condition that the contract would be renewed for another year only on satisfactory performance of work. The petitioner’s performance was obviously not satisfactory as serious irregularities were found during the period when he was posted at Lesliganj as Block Programme Officer. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau conducted the inquiry, framed charges and issued show-cause notice to all the persons responsible referred to above and has not indulged in pick and choose in taking action. The petitioner’s performance was obviously not satisfactory as serious irregularities were found during the period when he was posted at Lesliganj as Block Programme Officer. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau conducted the inquiry, framed charges and issued show-cause notice to all the persons responsible referred to above and has not indulged in pick and choose in taking action. Fine has been imposed under the provisions of MNREGA Act even against the Block Development Officer, Palamau apart from the petitioner and the others. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau has also not exonerated other Government officials like the Junior Engineer and Panchayat Sewak against whom departmental proceeding has been recommended. Block Development Officer has also been imposed with a warning and to be careful in future. The contract of the contractual employees like Gram Rojgar Sewak and Meth have been terminated. Since the appointing authority of the petitioner was the Commissioner, recommendation was made by the Deputy Commissioner for proper action. The Commissioner, Palamau Division has, upon consideration of all these materials on record, found the charges against the petitioner of serious nature and in the light of recommendation of Deputy Commissioner, Palamau passed the impugned order of termination of petitioner after due consideration of his show-cause. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the discussions made above, this Court does not find any infirmity in decision making process or in the order impugned whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated calling for interference under writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.