Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1306 (PAT)

Dasharath Ram v. State of Bihar

2023-12-01

P.B.BAJANTHRI, RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA

body2023
P. B. Bajanthri, J. – The appellant has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.04.2019 passed in CWJC No. 5174 of 2019. 2. Appellant was appointed as Vikash Mitra under the guidelines issued by the State Government vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 3. The appellant while working as Vikash Mitra on certain complaints show-cause notice was stated to have been issued and explanation has been obtained. Thereafter, it is reliably learnt that inquiry was also held. While taking these material the concerned District Welfare Officer proceeded to terminate the services of the appellant with the consent/approval of the jurisdictional District Magistrate ( ftyk inkfèkdkjh ). 4. If the appellant suffered an order before the learned Single Judge. Before the learned Single Judge appellant address the argument that procedures have not been followed while terminating the services and further it is contented that District Welfare Officer is not a competent authority to terminate the services of the appellant. On the other hand, it is only District Project Officer ( ftyk ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh ). It is necessary to reproduce extract of the learned Single Judge in Para 9 which reads as under: – “It would be difficult to accept such arguments for two reasons; the guidelines clearly indicate that Vikash Mitras shall not be treated as government servants and that the process of removal is in consonance with the rules provided in the guidelines. The sufficiency of the reasons for the Sub- Divisional Officer or the District Programme Officer and the sanction of removal by the District Magistrate, cannot be gone into in the present petition.” 5. The sufficiency of the reasons for the Sub- Divisional Officer or the District Programme Officer and the sanction of removal by the District Magistrate, cannot be gone into in the present petition.” 5. It is also necessary to re-produce order of termination at Annexure-1 to the writ petition which reads as under: – lekgj.kky; f'kogj ¼dY;k.k iz'kk[kk½ vkns'k Jh n'kjFk jke] fodkl fe=k iapk;r jkt&Qqydkgk¡] izkaM&Mqejh dVljh] ftyk&f'kogj dks foÙkh; o"kZ 2012&13 esa bafnjk vkokl vkoaVu esa cjrh xbZ vfu;ferrk ds lacaèk esa izkIr f'kdk;r i=k ds vkyksd esa rRdkyhu vuqeaMy inkfèkdkjh] f'kogj ds i=kad 5929@lkñ fnukad 21-10-13 ls izkIr tk¡p izfrosnu] Jh n'kjFk jke ds Li"Vhdj.k ij iz[kaM fodkl inkfèkdkjh] Mqejh dVljh ds i=kad 4 fnukad 20-01-2015 }kjk izkIr earO; ,oa orZeku vuqeaMy inkfèkdkjh] f'kogj }kjk lafpdk laxzg la[;k 24@05&2013 ds i`"B la[;k 23@fVñ ij dh xbZ leh{kk esa Jh n'kjFk jke] fodklfe=k dk dk;Zdyki larks"kizn ugha ik;k x;k gS ,oa fodklfe=k p;u ekxZnf'kZdk dh dafMdk 9(IV) ds vkyksd esa Jh n'kjFk jke] fodklfe=k] xzke iapk;r&Qqydkgk¡] iz[kaM&Mqejh dVljh] vuqeaMy& f'kogj dk fu;kstu lekIr djus dh vuq'kalk dh xbZ gSA fcgkj egknfyr fodkl fe'ku fcgkj iVuk ds ekxZnf'kZdk ds dafMdk 9 dh mi dafMdk (VI) ds esa Li"V gS fd fodklfe=k ljdkjh lsod ugha ekus tk,axsA fu;kstu ds i'pkr~ fdlh Hkh le; muds pfj= ,oa dk;Z vlarks"kizn gksus ds fLFkfr esa vuqeaMy inkfèkdkjh dh vuq'kalk ij ftyk inkfèkdkjh dh lgefr izkIr dj fu;kstu lekIr djus dh dkjZokbZ ftyk ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh ds }kjk dh tk,xhA Jh n'kjFk jke fodklfe=k iapk;r jkt Qqydkgk¡] iz[kaM&Mqejh dVljh] vuqeaMy&f'kogj] ftyk&f'kogj dk fu;kstu lekIr djus gsrq laxzg la[;k 24 lafpdk la[;k 05 o"kZ 2013 ds fVIi.kh i`"B la[;k 24 ij ftyk inkfèkdkjh] f'kogj ds }kjk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA mDr ikfjr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa Jh n'kjFk jke] fodklfe=k iapk;r jkt&Qqydkgk¡] iz[kaM&Mqejh dVljh] vuqeaMy& f'kogj] ftyk&f'kogj dk fu;kstu fnukad 13-07-2016 ds izHkko ls p;u eqDr fd;k tkrk gSA fu;kstu lekfIr ij ek=k fd, x, dk;Z vofèk dk gh ekuns; Hkqxrku ns; gksxkA gñ@& ftyk dY;k.k inkfèkdkjh f'kogjA Kkikad 406 fnukad 13@7@16 izfrfyfi&fe'ku funs'kd] fcgkj egknfyr fodkl fe'ku] fcgkj iVuk dks lknj lwpukFkZA izfrfyfi&mi funs'kd dY;k.k] frjgqr izeaMy] eqtÝQjiqj dks lknj lwpukFkZA izfrfyfi&ftyk inkfèkdkjh@mi fodkl vk;qDr] f'kogj dks lknj lwpukFkZA izfrfyfi&vuqeaMy inkfèkdkjh] f'kogj dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZ izsf"krA izfrfyfi&iz[kaM fodkl inkfèkdkjh] Mqejh dVljh dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZ izsf"krA izfrfyfi&Jh n'kjFk jke] fodklfe=k] iapk;r&Qqydkgk¡] iz[kaM&Mqejh dVljh] ftyk&f'kogj dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vuqikyukFkZ izsf"krA ftyk dY;k.k inkfèkdkjh f'kogjA 6. ClauseVI and Clause IX (6) of the guidelines reads as under: – “ VI . fu;kstu dh vofèk ,oa fu;kstu lekIr djus dh izfØ;k fodkl fe=k dk fu;kstu 60 o"kZ dk;Z fd;s tkus gsrq fd;k tk;sxkA fodkl fe=k ljdkjh lsod ugha ekus tk;saxsA fu;kstu ds i'pkr~ fdlh Hkh le; muds pfj= ,oa dk;Z vlarks"kizn gksus dh fLFkfr esa vuqeaMy inkfèkdkjh ;k ftyk ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh dh vuq'kalk ij ftyk inkfèkdkjh dh lgefr izkIr dj fu;kstu lekIr djus dh dkjZokbZ ftyk ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh ds }kjk dh tk,xhA fu;kstu lekfIr ij ek=k fd;s x, dk;Z vofèk dk gh ekuns; Hkqxrku ns; gksxkA IX. vuqeaMy inkfèkdkjh ,oa vuqeaMy dY;k.k inkfèkdkjh dk nkf;Ro 6- p;u izfØ;k varxZr vkifÙk izkIr djuk ,oa mudk fujkdj.k djukA** 7. In this backdrop, whether learned Single Judge has committed error in dismissing the writ petition or not is required to be examined in the present LPA. 8. Perusal of the termination order, it is crystal clear that it is not a speaking order for the reasons that there is no iota of reference to show-cause notice, explanation of the appellant, findings of the inquiring authority and other material information. These materials were required to be reflected and analyse by the Disciplinary Authority before terminating the services of the appellant for the reasons that termination order would be judicial review. Therefore, learned Single Judge has committed error in not noticing the aforementioned infirmities in the order of termination. 9. The other contention is that District Welfare Officer is not competent authority to terminate services of the appellant is concerned. Having regard to the language employed in Clause VI and Clause IX (6) of the guidelines read with the fact that District Magistrate ( ftyk inkfèkdkjh ) has approved the process of termination. Further, it is also reliably learnt that District Welfare Officer who is also holder of the post of District Programme Officer ( ftyk ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh ) in addition of District Welfare Officer. Therefore, the appellant’s contention that the impugned order or termination has been passed by the incompetent authority stands rejected. 10. In view of the lacuna noticed in the order of termination, we proposed to set aside the termination order as well as order of learned Single Judge dated 02.04.2019 passed in CWJC No. 5174 of 2019. 11. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed and the present LPA No. 948 of 2019 stands disposed of. 12. 10. In view of the lacuna noticed in the order of termination, we proposed to set aside the termination order as well as order of learned Single Judge dated 02.04.2019 passed in CWJC No. 5174 of 2019. 11. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed and the present LPA No. 948 of 2019 stands disposed of. 12. The concerned authority is hereby directed to reinstate the appellant and extend all service and monetary benefits from the date of termination till reinstatement. If there are serious complaints against the appellant in that event Disciplinary Authority/Appointing Authority is permitted to proceed afresh from the defective stage. The appellant shall be provided copies of the entire inquiring officer’s report and seek his explanation. Thereafter, both the Inquiring Officer’s report read with the appellant explanation shall be considered and proceed to pass order in accordance with the guidelines within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.