ORDER : 1. Matter comes up on misc. application No.1/2023 filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for deciding the present writ petition in view of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18855/2015 (Onkar Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) decided on 04.05.2023. 2. Learned counsel Mr. Ajatshatru Mina, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner has felt aggrieved against the notice dated 29.07.2013, the order dated 01.12.2015 terminating services of the petitioner and the order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the Secretary & Commissioner (Employment Guarantee Scheme), Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, rejecting appeal of the petitioner. 3. Learned Govt. Counsel Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, appearing for the respondents, submitted that some time is required to collect the relevant papers in respect of the enquiry conducted against the petitioner, however, counsel is aware of the fact that the Coordinate Bench has decided the similar controversy in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18855/2015 and he also appeared on behalf of the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Technical Assistant under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme on 05.06.2008 and he continued till passing of the impugned order dated 01.12.2015. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of some audit being conducted in respect of different work undertaken in Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and on the basis of objection by audit party, initial notice/order dated 29.07.2013 was issued, wherein three persons including the petitioner were found to be guilty and responsible for causing loss to the Government on account of irregular and forged payment being made to different persons. 6. Learned counsel submitted that in the said order Onkar Meena Senior Technical Assistant (EGS), Ashok Kumar Soni (JTA) including the petitioner working as Junior Technical Assistant, were directed to deposit the amount of Rs.18,66,329/-, Rs.2,48,217/- & Rs.16,18,112/- respectively. 7. Learned counsel submitted that after this order was issued, the respondents did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted and straightway order dated 01.12.2015 came to be passed. 8. 7. Learned counsel submitted that after this order was issued, the respondents did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted and straightway order dated 01.12.2015 came to be passed. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the other co-delinquent Onkar Meena and the present petitioner were terminated from service by the respondents by invoking Clause 6(i), (iii) and 7 (iv) of the Contract Agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 7 of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and the appeal also came to be dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the agreement, which was executed between the petitioner and the respondents, provided in Clause 6 that if any misconduct was proved against the first party-employee after an enquiry by the employer-respondent, than services can be terminated of such an employee. 11. Learned counsel further submitted that as per Clause 7 of the agreement, service of an employee can also be terminated on notice of one month on either side or by depositing/paying one month’s package/contract amount in lieu of notice. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 01.12.2015, has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and further the same is in violation of terms & conditions of the agreement, which has been entered into between the parties. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in respect of the other co-delinquent i.e. Onkar Meena, has also considered the issue in detail and set aside the termination order, as the same being passed in contravention of Clause 6(i) of the agreement. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies primarily on paras 5.1, 6 & 7 of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Onkar Meena (supra). 15. This Court deems it proper to quote para 5, 6 & 7 of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Onkar Meena (supra), which reads as under:- “5. 15. This Court deems it proper to quote para 5, 6 & 7 of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Onkar Meena (supra), which reads as under:- “5. This fact is not in dispute that while conducting an inspection of the construction work done under the MGNREGA Scheme at Panchayat Samiti, Bassi in the year 2008-09 and 2009-10, the following deficiencies were found:- 1- jkmizk fo|ky; fueksjk&ckal[kksg ds [ksy eSnku leryhdj.k dk;Z esa o"kZ 2009&10 esa fu/kkZfjr nj 132-86 ds LFkku ij 137@& :i;s dh nj ls feV~Vh [kqnkbZ dk Hkqxrku djk;k x;k ftlls Je en esa 2586-82 :i;s dk vf/kd Hkqxrku gqvkA 2- rykbZ [kqnkbZ dk;Z yVsfM;k&ckal[kksg ds ekg uoEcj 2009 f}rh; i[kokMs esa ,d vfrfjDr fyV LohÑr dj 5456-66 :i;s dk vf/kd Hkqxrku djk;k x;k gS] ftlls Je en esa Hkh 2447 dk vf/kd@vfu;fer Hkqxrku gqvk gSA 3- rykbZ [kqnkbZ dk;Z jkoyh esa twu 2009 f}rh; i[kokMs esa okVj dqyh dks 100@& :i;s izfr fnol ds LFkku ij 107@& :i;s dh nj pktZ dj jktdks"k ls vf/kd Hkqxrku djk;k x;kA 4- ,uhdV [kqnkbZ dk;Z ubZ dk egknso ekg fnlEcj 2009 f}rh; i[kokMs ds Je Hkqxrku esa eki iqfLrdk esa Je ds dk;Z dk dqy ;ksx 40309-58 gS tcfd eki iqfLrdk esa 37443-35 n'kkZ;k x;k gS] bl izdkj Je en esa 3148 dk Hkqxrku de djk;k x;kA 5- rykbZ [kqnkbZ dk;Z jkoyh ds ekg vxLr 2008 izFke i[kokMs esa 3 ds LFkku ij 4 fyV dh x.kuk dj jktdks"k ls vf/kd o vfu;fer Hkqxrku djk;k x;kA 6- xzke iapk;r ckal[kksg ds fuekZ.k dk;ksZa ds rdfeus ,oa rdfudh LohÑfr esa fyV o yhM LohÑr dh tkdj jktdks"k dks 55-99 yk[k :i;s dh gkfu igqapkbZ xbZA 7- fuekZ.k dk;ksZa ds eLVj jksYl ,oa eki iqfLrdk esa fd;s x;s ekuo fnol ds bUnzkt esa vUrj ik;k x;kA eki iqfLrdkvksa esa eki vadu ds vfrfjDr vko';d izek.k i= vafdr ugha fd;s x;s rFkk u gh l{ke izkf/kdkjh ls mudk izek.ku ugha djk;k x;kA 5.1. Thereafter a notice was given to the petitioner for giving his explanation and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it was found by the District Programme Co-ordinator cum District Collector, Jaipur that the petitioner was negligent and irregular in discharge of his duties and an order was passed on 20.04.2012 for deducting 10% amount from the salary of the petitioner for six months. It appears that subsequently proceedings were initiated on the basis of the audit enquiry and it was found that because of negligence and irregularities in the functioning of the petitioner and the others, the respondent-authorities have suffered monetary losses and accordingly, notices were issued to the petitioner and other persons to deposit the said amount before the authorities. It appears that in spite of receipt of the above notices, the recovery amount was not deposited with the authorities and the respondents proceeded against the petitioner again and passed the order impugned against him by taking a decision to terminate his services as per clause 6(i) of the Agreement and further directions issued to recover the amount from the petitioner within a period of three days. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that no enquiry after issuing notice was conducted against the petitioner as per Clause 6(i) of the Agreement. Clause 6(i) of the Agreement specifically says that if any misconduct is there on the part of First Party and the same is proven after an enquiry by the Second Party then the Second Party shall be at liberty to terminate the service of First Party, but here in the instant case after service of notice upon the petitioner no such enquiry was ever conducted by the respondents and straight away the order impugned has been passed in contravention of Clause 6(i) of the Agreement. Hence, the impugned order dated 01.12.2015 is not sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. The respondents are directed to hold an enquiry in contemplation of Clause 6(i) of the Agreement within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order.” 16. This Court finds that termination of services of the petitioner as well as of other co-delinquent Onkar Meena were on the basis of same common order passed by the Commissioner, National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Jaipur dated 01.12.2015 and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has found the same order to be in violation of Clause 6 of the Agreement, which had been entered into between the parties. 17. 17. This Court further finds that since adequate opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner and other employee – Onkar Meena, accordingly the termination order has been set aside and further liberty has been granted to the respondents to hold an enquiry as per Clause 6(i) of the agreement, after affording due opportunity to the delinquents and to pass a reasoned and speaking order. 18. Per contra, learned Govt. Counsel Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench is not applicable in the present case, as the facts pleaded in the case of Onkar Meena, were absolutely different. 19. Learned Govt. counsel for the respondents further submitted that in the instant case, perusal of the impugned order dated 01.12.2015 shows that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity and after hearing the petitioner, the order has been passed and as such it cannot be allowed to be pleaded before this Court that no enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. 20. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the respondents had produced voluminous documents in Onkar Meena’s case before the learned Single Judge to show that the delinquent employee was involved in causing loss to the Government and as such in the present case, in absence of such document, being made available to the Court, the order passed in the case of Onkar Meena (supra) may not be made applicable. 21. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that in the present case, notice/order dated 29.07.2013 had clearly found that the petitioner was involved in creating forged document and made payments to the different people by making forgery in the measurement book and as such role of the petitioner is entirely different than of one Onkar Meena and as such no parity can be claimed. 22. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the agreement, which has been signed between the petitioner and the respondent specifically provides in Clause 6 that if misconduct is proved after enquiry, the employer has every right to terminate services of the first party – employee. 23. 22. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the agreement, which has been signed between the petitioner and the respondent specifically provides in Clause 6 that if misconduct is proved after enquiry, the employer has every right to terminate services of the first party – employee. 23. Learned counsel submits that in the facts of the present case since the misconduct has been proved against the petitioner and a notice was given to the petitioner and as such it has to be assumed that due enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner has been terminated from service. 24. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 25. This Court finds that initially an order/notice dated 29.07.2013 was issued on the basis of audit report, which was conducted from the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2010. 26. This Court finds that the audit report had found the petitioner and other co-delinquent guilty of making payments on the basis of forged documents and as such the petitioner as well as other co-delinquent, were asked to contribute towards the loss caused by them in proportionate manner. 27. This Court finds that after issuance of the said order, the respondents straightway, passed the order dated 01.12.2015 and services of the petitioner were terminated. 28. This Court finds that the respondents have not conducted any enquiry against the petitioner as per Clause 6(i) of the agreement. 29. This Court may not be misunderstood to say that regular departmental enquiry under the Code of Civil Procedure (CCA) Rules, 1958 was to be conducted, however, an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent was required and after considering all the relevant facts, the employer had right to proceed in the matter. 30. This Court, after going through the order dated 01.12.2015, finds that the respondents-employer has exercised its power under Clause 6(i), 6 (iii) & 7(iv) of the Agreement. 31. This Court finds that the respondent-employer has straightway recorded a finding that the petitioner has caused loss to the Government and the recovery has to be effected against him and since the same has not been recovered and as such it would result into termination of service. 32. 31. This Court finds that the respondent-employer has straightway recorded a finding that the petitioner has caused loss to the Government and the recovery has to be effected against him and since the same has not been recovered and as such it would result into termination of service. 32. This Court is in complete agreement with the view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench that if employer wanted to invoke Clause 6(i) of the agreement, proper procedure ought to have been followed. 33. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the record is not available with him and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after going through the entire record, has come to the conclusion giving a finding to set aside the termination order, suffice it to say by this Court that the issue involved in the present writ petition is in respect of legality of order of termination of service, which has been passed by the respondents on 01.12.2015. 34. This Court finds that admittedly the petitioner has not been offered an opportunity of hearing and as such without giving any opportunity, the conclusion drawn by the respondents, cannot be upheld by this Court. 35. This Court finds that the respondents have acted in illegal manner while issuing the notice dated 29.07.2013 and the order dated 01.02.2015 and they were required to follow terms of the agreement, which were agreed into between the parties. 36. This Court sets aside the order dated 01.12.2015 and the order dated 06.04.2018. However, this Court grants liberty to the respondents for conducting an enquiry in contemplation of Clause 6(i) of terms of the agreement, if they intend to proceed against the petitioner and the same can be done only after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter can pass a reasoned and speaking order. 37. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed, in view of the aforesaid observations.