Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 66 (TRI)

Rajib Biswas v. State of Tripura

2020-05-22

ARINDAM LODH

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Ms. P. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Additional GA appearing for the State-respondents. 2. By means of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned termination order dated 26.03.2018 issued by the Block Development Officer, Mohanbhog RD Block, Sepahijala District, ( Annexure 21 to the writ petition.) 3. Brief facts are as under: The petitioner was first engaged as Gram Rozgar Sebak under MGNREGA, Bishalgarh RD Block vide order dated 11.03.2011 on contractual basis for a period of two years which may be extended time to time subject to satisfactory performance of the duties entrusted upon him. The said engagement letter dated 11.03.2010 is reproduced here-in-below: 'Government of Tripura Office of The Block Development Officer Office of the Programme Officer-MGNREGA Bishalgarh RD Block, West Tripura No. F.No. VIII-9/BDO/BLG/NREGA/09-10/77 Date: 11/03/2010 MEMORANDUM As desired by the District Authority of the MGNREGA and in reference with the Notification vide No. F.No. VIII-9/BDO/BLG/NREGA/09-10/4473, Dt. 14.08.2009 and subsequent Notification Vide No. VIII-9(A)/BDO/BLG/NREGA/GRS/09-10/7140-44, Dated 29.09.2009, the following candidates are hereby engaged as GRAM ROJGAR SEVAKS under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme of Bishalgarh RD Block on fixed pay @ Rs. 5500/- (Rupees Five Thousand and Five Hundred) only per month on PURELY TEMPORARY and ON CONTRACT BASIS for a fixed period of two years with a direction to report at the office of the Programme Officer of the MGNREGA, Bishalgarh RD Block (the Block Development Officer, Bishalgarh RD Block) within 3rd April, 2019: Sl. 5500/- (Rupees Five Thousand and Five Hundred) only per month on PURELY TEMPORARY and ON CONTRACT BASIS for a fixed period of two years with a direction to report at the office of the Programme Officer of the MGNREGA, Bishalgarh RD Block (the Block Development Officer, Bishalgarh RD Block) within 3rd April, 2019: Sl. No. NAME OF THE SELECTED CANDIDATE WITH THE NAME OF FATHER/HUSBAND 1 SRI ABHIRAM DEBBARMA, S/O JITENDRA DEBBARMA, PATHALIAGHAT VC 2 SRI SANJIB DEBBARMA, S/O UMESH DEBBARMA, RANGMALA VC 3 SRI HIRENDRA DEBBARMA, S/O ANIL GOPAL DEBBARMA, SUTARMURA VC 4 SRI DILIP DEBBARMA, S/O BISHENDRA DEBBARMA, RAMNAGAR VC 5 SRI MONORANJAN DEBBARMA, S/O NIRANJAN DEBBARMA, PROMODENAGAR VC 6 SRI GOPAL DEBBARMA, S/O KANAI DEBBARMA, PADMANAGAR VC 7 SRI BIDHUBHUSAN DEBBARMA, S/O SHIB CHARAN DEBBARMA, LATICCHERRA VC 8 SRI SHYAMAL DEBBARMA, S/O RABI KUMAR DEBBARMA, DHARIATHAL VC 9 SRI GOPAL DEBBARMA, S/O BRAJA KUMAR DEBBARMA, DAYARAMPARA VC 10 SRI SUNIL DEBBARMA, S/O BISHNU DEBBARMA, CHIKANCHERRA VC 11 SRI PABITRA DEBBARMA, SO KRISHNAPADA DEBBARMA, CHELLIKHOLA VC 12 SRI MILAN DEBBARMA, S/O PUSKA DEBBARM, AMTALI VC 13 SRI MONMOHAN DEBBARMA, S/O USHA RANJAN DEBBARMA, BATHANMURA VC 14 SRI JIBAN DEBBARMA, S/O ARUN DEBBARMA, BASHTALI VC 15 SRI MADHUSUDAN DEBBARMA, S/O BHOLANATH DEBBARMA, GULIRAIBARI VC 16 SRIMATI MOUSUMI DEBBARMA, D/O RAKHAL DEBBARMA, BANGSHIBARI VC 17 SRI BIPLAB ALAM, S/O ABDUL KADIR, ARABINDANAGAR GP 18 SRI HILLAL MIAH, S/O ALFU MIAH, GAJARIA GP 19 SRI MOHAMMED HABIBUR RAHAMAN, S/O MOHAMMED NANU MIAH, RAGHUNATHPUR GP 20 SRI FARUK AHMED MAJUMDER, S/O ALTAB ALI, GHANIAMARA GP 21 SRI HARADHAN BANIK, S/O ANIL CHANDRA BANIK, PRABHURAMPUR GP 22 SRI RAJIB BISWAS, S/O BINODE BIHARI BISWAS, MADHYALAXMIBILL GP 23 SRIMATI BULTI SARKAR, D/O AJIT LAL SARKAR, LAXMIBILL GP 24 SRI GANDHARAJ SINHA, S/O LEHOUBA SINHA, GOPINAGAR GP 25 SRI PARIMAL DUTTA, S/O MANMOHAN DUTTA, GOLAGHATI GP 26 SRI GOPAL PAUL, S/O MURARI PAUL, PATHALIA GP 27 SRI SWAPAN KUMAR DEB, S/O SUBHASH DEB, KASHBA GP 28 SR NAJMUR HUSSAIN, S/O ALFU MIAH, CHANDRANAGAR GP 29 SRI NANTU CHANDRA DEBNATH, S/O KSHETRA MOHAN DEBNATH, ROUTHKHALA GP 30 SRI DIPESH NAHA, S/O AJIT RANJAN NAHA, NABINAGAR GP 31 SRI MATILAL DAS, S/O GOPAL DAS, BRAJAPUR GP 32 SRI UTTAM DEBNATH, S/O KRISHNA KANTA DEBNATH, UTTAR BRAJAPUR GP 33 SRI LITAN DEBNATH, S/O KALIPADA DEBNATH, LALSINGHMURA GP 34 SRI SATYA RANJAN BHOWMIK, S/O DHIRENDRA BHOWMIK, RAMCHERRA GP 35 SRI BHAVA RANJAN DEBNATH, S/O NEPAL CHANDRA DEBNATH, UTTAR CHARILAM GP 36 SRI CHANDAN DAS, S/O ANIL DAS, DAKSHIN CHARILAM GP 37 SRI DILIP KUMAR DEBNATH, S/O HALADHAR DEBNATH, CHESRIMAI GP 38 SRI ANIL DEBBARMA, S/O SACHINDRA DEBBARMA, BARJALA GP 39 SRI DEBAPRASAD NANDY, S/O SUNIL KUMAR NANDY. BISHRAMGANJ GP 40 SRI AMIK ACHARJEE, S/O PROMODE KANTI ACHARJEE, GOKULNAGAR GP 41 SRI RATAN DEY, S/O SUKUMAR DEY, PURATHAL RAJNAGAR GP 42 SRI SRIBASH CHOWDHURY, S/O NEPAL CHANDRA CHOWDHURY, PURBA GOKULNAGAR GP 43 SRI DHIRENDRA DEBNATH, S/O NISHIKANTA DEBNATH, NEHALCHANDRANAGAR GP 44 SRI DWIJA CHOWDHURY, S/O HARIMOHAN CHOWDHURY, MADHUPUR GP 45 SRI BHULAM KUMAR ROY, S/O HARIPADA ROY, DAKSHIN MADHUPUR GP 46 SRI SHYAMAL DDAS, S/O SATISH CHANDRA DAS, KONABAN GP 47 SRI AVIJIT DEBBARMA, S/O DWIJENDRA DEBBARMA, DEVIPUR GP 48 SRI ARUN UDAY DAY, S/O ABANIMOHAN DAS, KOIADEPHA GP 49 SRI SUKHLAL DAS, S/O SUKUMAR DAS, KAMALASAGAR GP 50 SRI BAPI DEBNATH, S/O BALARAM DEBNATH, CHAMPAMURA GP 51 SRI KAYUM HOSSAIN, S/O NABALAK MIAH, K.K. NAGAR GP 52 SRI CHANDAN DEBNATH, S/O JITENDRA DEBNATH, RADHANAGAR GP 2. The continuation of engagement of the GRAM ROJGAR SEVAKS beyond the period of two years would be subject to satisfactory performance and continuation of the said scheme. 3. The appointment may be terminated at any time by a months notice either by the appointee or the appointing authority without assigning any reason. The appointing authority reserves the right to terminate the services of the appointee forthwith. 4. The appointment shall be subject to the following conditions: I. Production of the following documents: a) Certificate of the educational qualifications (attested copies) b) Certificate of Character (in original) c) Certificate of AGE i.e. admit card of the Madhyamik Examination or any equivalent document (attested copy) d) Certificate in the prescribed format in support of candidates belonging to SC/ST (attested copies) e) Certificate of citizenship/PRTC (attested copies) II. If any declaration given or information furnished by the candidate(s) proves to be false or if the candidate(s) is found to have willfully suppressed any materials/fact/information, he/she will be liable to be removed from contract service. 5. They should report to the duties at the office of the undersigned within 11 am on the date as mentioned above with joining report and the alongwith the required documents as mentioned above and on failure in joining from the end of the above mentioned candidates at the office of the undersigned in due time and date as mentioned above, the appointment will be automatically cancelled'. 4. Pursuant to the said engagement letter, the petitioner had joined at Bishalgarh RD Block on 22.10.2016 and subsequently, on transfer, he had joined Mohanbhog RD Block under the same District on 24.10.2016. 4. Pursuant to the said engagement letter, the petitioner had joined at Bishalgarh RD Block on 22.10.2016 and subsequently, on transfer, he had joined Mohanbhog RD Block under the same District on 24.10.2016. When the petitioner was in such engagement he was served with a showcause notice dated 01.12.2017 issued by the respondent No.3 ( Annexure-16 to the writ petition). 5. After receipt of the said show-cause notice, the petitioner has submitted his reply/representation on 05.12.2017 ( Annexure-17 to the writ petition) wherein he confronted the allegations leveled in the said showcause notice. 6. The said representation was duly considered by the respondent No.3 and while issuing the impugned termination order dated 26.03.2018, the respondent No.3 had dwelled upon all the contentions, the petitioner raised in his representation. However, the petitioner by way of preferring appeal dated 16.04.2018 had urged to review the order of termination dated 26.03.2018. But, ultimately, the respondent No.3 found the petitioner unsuitable for the said post, and being found his service unsuitable, the said engagement of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 26.03.2018 issued by the Respondent no.3 (Annexure 21 to the writ petition.) 7. The State-respondents by way of filing counter affidavit had denied the statements made by the petitioner that he was not afforded with reasonable opportunity to defend his case. 8. The main controversy arises in the present writ petition as to whether the impugned termination order is bad in law being stigmatic in nature. The bone of contention of the learned counsel, Ms. P. Dhar appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned termination order dated 26.03.2018 per se is illegal and arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice and violative of the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. Ms. Dhar, learned counsel has contended that serious imputations were made against the petitioner and a full-fledged departmental inquiry ought to have been made before issuance of the termination order. The said termination order is premeditated and without any reason whatsoever. In support of her submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2006) 12 SCC 33 and in Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2013) 4 SCC 301 . 10. Per contra, Mr. In support of her submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2006) 12 SCC 33 and in Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2013) 4 SCC 301 . 10. Per contra, Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Additional G.A., defending the action of the respondents, has submitted that one of the terms and conditions of the engagement of the petitioner as Gram Rozgar Sewak under MGNREGA Scheme is that ' engagement of the petitioner would be subject to satisfactory performance and continuation of the MGNREGA guidelines.' According to learned Additional G.A., from the terms and conditions of engagement it is clear that the engagement of the petitioner is purely contractual in nature. The petitioner does not hold any civil post and such engagement may be terminated for rendering unsatisfactory service to the Respondents. Further, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was afforded with adequate opportunity to defend the charges leveled against him. He was favoured with the showcause notice, where all the facts surfaced were informed to the petitioner and the petitioner in response to the said show-cause notice had dealt with all the allegations in support of his defence in his representation dated 16.04.2018. After receipt of the said representation, the concerned authority had duly considered the reply against the imputations that were made against him and after considering all aspects the respondents found that the petitioner was not suitable for the post of GRS, as he acted against the established guidelines mentioned in the MGNREGA Scheme and being dissatisfied, the engagement of the petitioner was terminated. 11. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties to the lis. I have scaled the authorities placed before this Court by the learned counsels. For the purpose of appreciation, the contents of the show-cause notice dated 01.12.2017 issued upon the petitioner may be reproduced here-in-below: ' SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHEREAS, it appears that Sri Rajib Biswas, GRS, posted at kalamkhet Gram Panchayat under Mohanbhog RD Block, Sepahijala, Tripura is absent from his duty w.e.f. 02.05.2017 to till date without any prior intimation to his authority. & WHEREAS it is noticed with dissatisfaction that Sri Rajib Biswas, GRS is found to be absenting himself occasionally from office duty since the joining of himself at Kalamkhet Gram Panchayat which he has been cautioned by the undersigned couple of times verbally which also amounts to gross negligence and insubordination in carrying out Government duties and also observed that Sri Rajib Biswas, GRS has no interest for carrying out the NREGA works for which he is paid honorarium accordingly. & WHEREAS, Sri Rajib Biswas, GRS is failed to response of the show cause and caution Notice against his irregularities earlier which is as matter of termination for violation of guideline of MGNREGA. NOW In this context, Sri Biswas, GRS is finally instructed to reply of the complain as claimed above within 03(three) days of receipts of the show-cause letter failing which ex-parte decision will be taken against him.' 12. Having received no response, the respondent No.3 had issued the termination order. For convenience, the said termination order is reproduced here-in-below: 'NO. F.2(11)/BDO/MBG/ESTT/2013-14/20072-75 GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA OFFICE OF THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MOHANBHOG R.D. BLOCK SEPAHIJALA DISTRICT, TRIPURA Dated, Mohanbhog, the 26th March, 2018 ORDER Subject: Termination of Sri Rajib Biswas, GRS, S/o Binode Bihari Biswas of Madhya Laxmibill, Bishalgarh Whereas, a letter recommending termination of Sri Rajib Biswas, GRS, S/o Binode Bihari Biswa of Madhya Laxmibill, Bishalgarh presently posted at Mohanbhog RD Block was sent to the District Magistrate & Collector, Sepahijala District vice no. F.1(7)/BDO/BLG/ESTT/2015-16/3029 dated 10/07/2017 (Annex-I) by the then Block Development Officer, Bishalgarh R.D. Block for carelessness, non-bothering official decorum and non-devotion for guideline formulated by government. F.1(7)/BDO/BLG/ESTT/2015-16/3029 dated 10/07/2017 (Annex-I) by the then Block Development Officer, Bishalgarh R.D. Block for carelessness, non-bothering official decorum and non-devotion for guideline formulated by government. & Whereas, the District Magistrate & Collector, Sepahijala District vide his letter No. F(15)/DM/ESTT/SPJ/VOL-IV/2015/13783-84 dated 26/07/2017 (Annex-II) & No F(15)/DM/ESTT/SPJ/VOL-IV/2015/18904-06 dated 29/11/2017 (Annex-III) instructed to arrange for termination of Sri Rajib Biswas, GRS & Whereas, the Block Development Officer, Bishalgarh R.D. Block vide his letter No. F.1(17)/BDO/BLG/ESTT/2014-15/17946-47, dated 26/03/2018 (Annex IV) requested for termination of Sri Rajib Biswas, GRS, S/o Binode Bihari Biswas of Madhya Madhya Laxmibill, Bishalgarh presently posted at Mohanbhog RD Block & Whereas, as per terms and condition laid down in engagement memorandum No. F.No. VIII-9/BDO/BLG/NREGA/09-10 dated 11/03/2010 (Annex V) of the Programme Officer (Block Development Officer) Bishalgarh R.D. Block the appointment may be terminated at any time by a month s notice either by the appointee or the appointing authority without assigning any reason and the appointment authority reserves the right to terminate the service of the appointee forthwith. Now Therefore, considering the above the undersigned orders termination of the service of Sri Rajib Biswas, GRS w.e.f. afternoon of the 26th March, 2018. (R.Deb) Block Development Officer Mohanbhog R.D. Block Sepahijala District, Tripura' 13. On 31.05.2017, the respondent no. 3 issued another show-cause (Annexure R-2 to the writ petition) notice upon the petitioner, which reads as under: ' SHOW CAUSE WHEREAS, during the visit of Dy. Secretary, MORD at Champamura Gram Panchayat, it appears that a work namely for 'Land development for Agri purpose at the Land of Raju Deb S/O Binoy' was not properly done. The following observations made by the Dy. Secretary: i) Work done without any further plan to utilize the land; ii)Such a huge height of soil (14 feet) cut down which leads to soil erosion and because of cutting surface soil, the land in question becomes almost barren; iii)The work was not measured but payment given AND WHEREAS lateron it also appeared that the other works done by him in the said GP more or less has the same irregularities. No adjustment found for the works done by him during his period and works done by him. No adjustment found for the works done by him during his period and works done by him. Now, Sri Rajib Biswas, GRS at present posted at Mohanbhog RD Block is hereby asked to explain as to why action will not be taken against him and why he will not to be terminated for violation of guideline of MGNREGA. His reply should reach to this office within 3(three) days from the date of receipt of this letter, failing which ex-parte decision will be taken against him' A bare perusal of the show-cause notice, it is revealed that in the show-cause notice the competent authority had highlighted all the facts of imputations levelled against the petitioner and thereby provided him all the opportunities to confront those allegations and accordingly, submitted reply by way of representation. From the representation, it is apparent that the petitioner has dwelled upon all the allegations in support of his defence. The termination order dated 26.03.2018 clearly manifests that the respondent No.3 had duly considered the defence raised by the petitioner in his representation and after due consideration the respondent No.3 had issued the termination order. 14. Admittedly, the petitioner does not hold the civil post and his service was purely on contractual basis under the MGNREGA Scheme. The petitioner in his representation dated 16.04.2018 has stated that he was ignorant of the charge/ allegations levelled against him. He has further stated in his representation that he was under medical treatment and sought medical leave from his superior. He has also stated that since his brother, who lives with him, though received a show-cause notice on his behalf, but, did not inform him regarding any show-cause notice for which he could not submit any reply against that show-cause notice. 15. By filing counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that by a show-cause notice dated 01.12.2017, the respondent no. He has also stated that since his brother, who lives with him, though received a show-cause notice on his behalf, but, did not inform him regarding any show-cause notice for which he could not submit any reply against that show-cause notice. 15. By filing counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that by a show-cause notice dated 01.12.2017, the respondent no. 3 asked the petitioner to reply on the following points: ( i) Sri Rajib Biswas absent from his duty w.e.f. 02.05.2017 to 01.12.2017 without any prior intimation; (ii) Sri Rajib Biswas, GRS was found to be absenting himself occasionally from office duty since the joining of himself at Kalamkhet Gram Panchayat which he had been cautioned by the then BDO couple of times verbally; (iii) Sri Rajib Biswas, GRS had no interest for carryingout the NREGA works for which he was paid honorarium; (iv) Sri Rajib Biwas, GRS failed to respond to show cause notice issued against him for irregularities. Both the BDO had opined that Sri Biswas had shown negligence in duty. Sri Rajib Biswas submitted one joining letter as on 20.01.2018 but as per available office record Sri Rajib Biswas did not submit any reply of the show cause letter issued by BDO, Bishalgarh regarding financial irregularity vide letter no. F.1(7)/BDO/BLG/ESTT/2015-16/2141-45 dated 31.05.2017). It was also mentioned by BDO Bishalgarh in the show cause letter that no adjustment found for the works done by Sri Rajib Biswas, I/O during his period. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that on careful examination of office records, it is found that Sri Rajib Biswas was absent in office from (a) 13.11.2016 to 28.11.2016, (b) 13.02.2017 to 16.04.2017, (c) 02.05.2017 to 14.07.2017, (d) 14.07.2017 to 01.12.2017, (e) 01.12.2017 to 19.01.2018. Sri Rajib Biswas never informed the authority concerned about his absence prior to issue of any show cause letter. So, it appears that Sri Rajib Biswas used to remain absent in office on several occasion without any prior intimation to authority. In the said counter affidavit, the respondents have further stated that the petitioner had applied for Special leave for self treatment as on 18.04.2016 for 11 days w.e.f. 19.0.2017 to 29.04.2017 but he did not join after that period and never informed the authority (neither written nor verbal) about extension of leave and the BDO, Mohanbhog issued another show-cause notice dated 14.07.2017 to Rajib Biswas. 16. 16. In the termination order dated 26.03.2018, it is specifically stated that the appointment may be terminated at any time by a month s notice either by the appointee or the appointing authority without assigning any reason and the appointing authority reserves the right to terminate the service of the appointee forthwith and, therefore, considering the above the undersigned orders termination of the service of Sri Rajib Biswas, GRS w.e.f. afternoon of the 26th March, 2018. 17. It is apparent from the said termination order itself that the petitioner has miserably failed to perform his duties as per the guidelines under the said Act and Scheme. After perusal of the decision of the Apex Court in Siemens Ltd.(supra) , as referred by Ms. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion, the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of the case in Siemens Ltd.(supra) . Ms. Dhar, has relied upon para 9 of the said decision, which reads thus: '9. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [ (1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943 ], Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [ (2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826] and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [ (2006) 12 SCC 28 : (2006) 12 Scale 262 ], but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle viz. when a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, even if the court directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose. (See K.I. Shephard v. Union of India [ (1987) 4 SCC 431 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 438 : AIR 1988 SC 686 ].) It is evident in the instant case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the counter-affidavit as also in its purported show-cause notice.' 18. (See K.I. Shephard v. Union of India [ (1987) 4 SCC 431 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 438 : AIR 1988 SC 686 ].) It is evident in the instant case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the counter-affidavit as also in its purported show-cause notice.' 18. In the case of Siemens Ltd. (supra) , the petitioner has challenged the show-cause notice itself, where the Court had observed that the writ petition was not maintainable. In the instant case, the writ petition having held to be maintainable, it has been posted for hearing. So, the roots of the case of Siemens Ltd. (supra) being on different context is not considered by this Court. 19. In the case of Nirmala J. Jhala (supra) , the petitioner was a member of Gujarat State Judicial Service, where various legal issues concerning to preliminary inquiry and the full-fledged departmental enquiry, and further the scope of judicial review were the questions fell for consideration. But, here, this Court is dealing with a case where the petitioner was under a contract service, having contractual obligations stipulated in the engagement letter itself. 20. In the case in hand, the petitioner was afforded with reasonable opportunities to defend his case. He has submitted his representation confronting the allegations leveled against him, which were duly considered by the competent authority of the respondents. One of the conditions stipulated in the engagement is that the extension of the service of the contractual period is subject to satisfactory performance of the duties the petitioner was entrusted upon . The respondents after due consideration found the performance of the duties was unsatisfactory. He was afforded with the opportunity to give cogent reasons for dereliction of duty clearly specified in the notice. So, in my opinion, he cannot urge that he was not afforded with reasonable opportunity. 21. In the instant case, the authorities concerned keeping in mind the doctrine of fairness had evaluated the performance of the petitioner in discharging his duties. Thereafter, after careful scrutiny he was served with the show-cause notice highlighting the factum of his inefficiency in discharging the duties, he was assigned with. 21. In the instant case, the authorities concerned keeping in mind the doctrine of fairness had evaluated the performance of the petitioner in discharging his duties. Thereafter, after careful scrutiny he was served with the show-cause notice highlighting the factum of his inefficiency in discharging the duties, he was assigned with. In my opinion, there is no embargo upon the competent authority to examine his suitability before consideration for continuation of his contract period and thus, acting bonafide in that behalf, the authority has also given a chance to the petitioner to explain. Such an inquiry was held only for the purpose of deciding whether the contractual appointment of the petitioner would further be extended or not. There is no allegation made by the petitioner that the respondents had acted with malafide. It is not the case of the petitioner that the termination of the petitioner was actuated with any motive or malice on the part of the respondents. No argument of any substance was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to press the point of malafide. More so, there is no allegation against the respondents that due to some other extraneous reasons his service was terminated or the foundation of termination order was based on some other reasons suppressing the actual state of facts where the court has to lift the veil behind the curtain . 22. Reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself [ (1979) 4 SCC 642 , SCC p.658, para 29]. ( emphasis supplied) In Rama Varma Bharathan Thampuram v. State of Kerala, (1979) 4 SCC 782 , V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench held that one of the attributes of quasi-judicial functioning is the recording of reasons in support of decisions taken and the other requirement is following the principles of natural justice. The learned Judge held that natural justice requires reasons to be written for the conclusions made (see SCC p.788, para 14 : AIR p.1922, para 14). 23. Again, I may profitably refer to the case of State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 691 had laid down: [SCC pp.697-98, paras 6 and 7] '2. The learned Judge held that natural justice requires reasons to be written for the conclusions made (see SCC p.788, para 14 : AIR p.1922, para 14). 23. Again, I may profitably refer to the case of State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 691 had laid down: [SCC pp.697-98, paras 6 and 7] '2. In the context of the provisions contained in the Rules this Court in State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla [ (1991) 1 SCC 691 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 587 : (1991) 16 ATC 498] has laid down: (SCC pp. 697-98, paras 6 and 7) Under the service jurisprudence a temporary employee has no right to hold the post and his services are liable to be terminated in accordance with the relevant service rules and the terms of contract of service. If on the perusal of the character roll entries or on the basis of preliminary inquiry on the allegations made against an employee, the competent authority is satisfied that the employee is not suitable for the service whereupon the services of the temporary employee are terminated, no exception can be taken to such an order of termination. A temporary government servant has no right to hold the post, his services are liable to be terminated by giving him one month's notice without assigning any reason either under the terms of the contract providing for such termination or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary government servants. A temporary government servant can, however, be dismissed from service by way of punishment. Whenever, the competent authority is satisfied that the work and conduct of a temporary servant is not satisfactory or that his continuance in service is not in public interest on account of his unsuitability, misconduct or inefficiency, it may either terminate his services in accordance with the terms and conditions of the service or the relevant rules or it may decide to take punitive action against the temporary government servant.' In that case an adverse entry had been awarded in the year 1977-78 that the work of the employee was poor and he should work hard and take interest in the work and there was report of a preliminary inquiry on a complaint with regard to unauthorised audit by the employee. This Court held that the termination of the services of the employee in those circumstances could not be held to be by way of punishment so as to attract Article 311(2) of the Constitution.' The said principle was further reiterated in the case of State of U.P. & Anr. v. Ram Krishna & Anr. reported in (1999) 7 SCC 350 . 24. As I said earlier, after conscious consideration of the reply of the petitioner, the competent authority held that to keep pace with the spirit of MGNREGA Act and the guidelines thereunder, the continuation of the service of the petitioner as Gram Rozgar Sewak would be detrimental to achieve the object and purpose for which the Scheme and the Act are meant for, and by a reasoned order his service was terminated, being found to be unsatisfactory. In this background, in my considered opinion, the doctrine of fairness is sufficiently complied with and the termination of the service of the petitioner should not be held to be by way of punishment so as to attract Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and, it is not open to the petitioner to invoke the provision of Article 311 of the Constitution for the simple reason that the inquiry which ultimately led to his termination was held only for the purpose of deciding whether power to extend or renew the contract should be exercised. 25. Reasons are the essence of law to be surfaced in the order itself. Following the ratio laid down in Rama Varma (supra) and Kaushal Kishore Shukla (supra) , this court is of the view that the efficiency of the employee and the subjective satisfaction of the employer should be the sole determining factor. Of course, the authority concerned is duty bound to inform the employee the reasons for dis-satisfaction in regard to one s inefficiency, unsuitability and misconduct providing reasonable opportunity to explain and confront the subject of imputations against such employee as requirements of well-ingrained doctrine of fairness. 26. In the case in hand, the petitioner as aforestated was engaged on contractual basis against a post which is not a civil post, and that too under a noble scheme like MGNREGA; reasons are well surfaced in the showcause notice itself. The petitioner submitted representations in his defence and confronted the subject of imputations. 26. In the case in hand, the petitioner as aforestated was engaged on contractual basis against a post which is not a civil post, and that too under a noble scheme like MGNREGA; reasons are well surfaced in the showcause notice itself. The petitioner submitted representations in his defence and confronted the subject of imputations. The competent authority had taken into account the statements he made in the reply and disposed of the same by a reasoned order. 27. In the backdrop of above analysis on factual and legal aspects, I am unable to persuade myself to accept the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there was premeditation or some hostile motive behind the impugned order of termination and the termination order carries stigma which may affect the future prospect of the employment of the petitioner rather the competent authorities had discharged their solemn duties cast upon them. The respondent no.3 in the impugned order has clearly stated that the petitioner while discharging his duties was careless, non-bothering of official decorum and non-devotion of the guideline formulated by the government. That apart, admittedly he was found to be absenting unauthorisedly. In the circumstances, the reasons assigned in the order of termination, in my considered view, should not be treated or characterized as stigmatic. These are the ex facie reasons grounded for his termination. Further, the termination order manifestly is in conformity with the terms and conditions stipulated in the engagement letter itself. In the context of the case, a full-fledged formal departmental enquiry, in my opinion, is not called for. If there is any breach of contractual obligations on the part of the respondents, then, proper remedy for the petitioner is to claim damage by way of appropriate proceeding in a competent court of law. 28. Having held so, I find no merit in the writ petition, and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.