Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2333 (JHR)

Dhiraj Ghosh v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-10-23

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT S.N. Pathak, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for restraining the respondents to give effect to the show-cause notice dated 15.06.2018, issued by the respondent No. 5, vide letter No. 794 dated 15.06.2018, addressed to Block Development Officer, Nirsa Block. 3. The facts of the case in nutshell is as follows:- In the year 2015, the petitioner was appointed as a Consultant Agriculture CFT Sanjivani vide letter No. 283 dated 04.06.2015 and an offer of appointment was issued in favour of petitioner to join the said post. Pursuant to the said offer of appointment, the petitioner gave his joining on 15.06.2015 itself. The petitioner discharged his duties as Consultant Agriculture under NRLM-CFT and MGNREGA Convergence Project till 08.08.2017. Subsequently, the petitioner received a letter of appointment from the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad allowing him to join to the post of Block Coordinator at Nirsa Block. On the basis of said appointment letter, petitioner resigned from Jharkhand State Livelihood Promotion Society. As per notification dated 01.03.2017, contained in memo No. 1016, the petitioner joined as Block Coordinator in the office of Block Development Officer, Nirsa on 10.08.2017. After his joining, the petitioner was discharging his duties with utter satisfaction of his Higher Authorities but all of a sudden, after lapse of 10 months, petitioner came to know that on an omnibus complaint made by one Political Party before the Chief Minister regarding domicile of the petitioner, a show-cause notice dated 14/15.06.2018 was issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, which is impugned in the present writ petition, to place the entire documents in favour of his appointment for a decision to be taken by the respondents regarding his domicile status. The petitioner aggrieved by the said show-cause notice, has knocked the door of this Hon''ble Court. 4. Mr. P.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Kishore Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the impugned order is without jurisdiction. The Deputy Development Commissioner has no authority to issue show-cause notice as the appointing authority of the petitioner was Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. Learned senior counsel further argues that on the ground of domicile, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be cancelled or terminated. The Deputy Development Commissioner has no authority to issue show-cause notice as the appointing authority of the petitioner was Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. Learned senior counsel further argues that on the ground of domicile, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be cancelled or terminated. The petitioner had received the entire education from the State of Jharkhand and only on the ground that he is not a permanent resident of Jharkhand and belongs to West Bengal, his services cannot be terminated. Learned senior counsel places heavy reliance on several judgments of Hon''ble Apex Court and particularly, the Constitutional Bench''s judgment of this Hon''ble Court in case of Prashant Vidyarthy & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in, 2005 1 JLJR 210 . Learned senior counsel submits that the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside and a direction be given to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad not to act upon Annexure-9 dated 14/15.06.2018 and allow the petitioner to continue in the service. 5. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Rishikesh Giri, learned AC to GP-II, vehemently opposes the contention of the learned Senior Counsel and submits that the present writ petition is pre-mature and fit to be dismissed in limine inasmuch as the petitioner has rushed to the Court without submitting his show-cause reply. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards paras-7 and 8 of the counter-affidavit and submits that by way of show-cause notice, petitioner has only been asked to submit his reply regarding his contractual appointment. The respondents have every right to enquire the matter if it is alleged that it is a forged appointment. Learned counsel further argues that in view of the submissions made in the counter-affidavit, the present writ petition is not maintainable and fit to be dismissed. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner has rushed to the Court without filing his show-cause reply. It is always open to the petitioner to present his stand before the respondent-authorities and clarify that his appointment was not a forged one rather, it was genuine and he was fully entitled for appointment and has been appointed in accordance with law. However, instead of filing his show-cause reply before the respondent authorities, the petitioner has rushed to this Court. 7. However, instead of filing his show-cause reply before the respondent authorities, the petitioner has rushed to this Court. 7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby direct the respondent Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad to enquire the matter himself and take a decision regarding genuineness of appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to file his show-cause reply and take all stand before the respondent-Deputy Commissioner and produce all the documents on which he is relying showing genuineness of his appointment. 8. Petitioner is directed to file a representation annexing all the documents on which he is relying upon and even the judgments which has been placed by him before this Court to strengthen his arguments, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon receipt of the same, the Deputy Commissioner shall take a final decision within a period of 15 days thereafter. Let it be made clear that till a final decision is taken by the Deputy Commissioner, the services of the petitioner shall not be interfered. 9. Resultantly, the writ petition stands disposed of.