Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 680 (JHR)

Sujeet Kumar Vishwakarma v. State of Jharkhand

2024-07-08

B.R.SARANGI, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2024
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Suraj Prakash, learned AC to SC VII for the respondents-State. 2. The appellant files the present intra-court appeal challenging order dated 10.11.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 3526 of 2021 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition refusing to interfere with the order as contained in Memo No. 264 dated 23.09.2020, whereby and whereunder the service/ contract of the petitioner from the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor (STS) has been ended/terminated and office order as contained in Memo No. 287 dated 08.10.2020, whereby and whereunder, the respondent no. 6 has been appointed on the post of senior treatment supervisor in place of the appellant after termination of service of the appellant. 3. The factual matrix of the case, is that, an advertisement was published on 08.01.2019 for appointment against various posts including the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor on contract basis against the sanctioned and vacant post following the reservation roster etc. Appellant applied against the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor and in the provisional merit list followed by final merit list, his name finds place at Serial No. 3 against the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor under general category whereas name of respondent no. 6 finds place at serial no. 4 under the general category. Thereafter, pursuant to the memo no. 3627 dated 11.10.2019, appellant was directed to join the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor. Subsequently, he joined the service on 14.10.2019, which was duly accepted by the office of the Civil Surgeon and was posted at Community Health Centre, Dhurki. Appellant was also deputed for Covid-19 duty and he duly followed the instructions issued by the competent authority from time to time. 4. On 13.06.2020, the appellant was taken into custody in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No. 693 of 2019 and was sent to Ghaghidih Jail, Jamshedpur. Pursuant to letter no. 236 dated 07.08.2020, appellant was issued show-cause notice directing him to submit explanation within 24 hours. 5. Appellant submitted his reply dated 20.09.2020 from the jail itself, explaining the compelling circumstances. But without considering the reply of the appellant, pursuant to memo no. 264 dated 23.09.2020, the order of termination was passed by the respondents without following any process of law. Meanwhile, respondent no. 6 was given appointment letter in his place. 6. 5. Appellant submitted his reply dated 20.09.2020 from the jail itself, explaining the compelling circumstances. But without considering the reply of the appellant, pursuant to memo no. 264 dated 23.09.2020, the order of termination was passed by the respondents without following any process of law. Meanwhile, respondent no. 6 was given appointment letter in his place. 6. In the meantime, the informant of Garhwa P.S. Case no. 693 of 2019, made an affidavit before the Notary Public on 10.07.2020, stating therein that the appellant was his tuition teacher and used to scold her during her studies for not preparing the homework and under influence of somebody, she lodged a false case and does not want to contest the same any further. Said informant has also filed an application before the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Garhwa reiterating the same thing that under influence of somebody, she had filed false case against the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant was enlarged on bail vide order dated 12.03.2021 passed in B.A. no. 7964 of 2020. 7. Subsequently, representation was filed by the appellant for his reinstatement in service but the same was not acted upon. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3526 of 2021 and the learned Single Judge after hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan SRTC v. Paramjeet Singh, [ (2019) 6 SCC 250 ] wherein it has been observed that since the terms of appointment indicate that the respondent was on a purely contractual appointment and that the services could be dispensed with without notice at any stage. 8. Considering the nature of allegation made against the appellant that he indulged in criminal case, which was lodged against him, and even if subsequently the informant made her statement by filing affidavit that under influence of somebody, she lodged the false case that itself cannot waive out the position and as such, the learned Single Judge is well justified in passing the order that since the order of termination is passed because of the involvement of the appellant in the criminal case which may not be considered as stigmatic one as the order of termination is well justified and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. 9. 9. In the above view of the matter, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge so as to warrant interference with the same. 10. Accordingly, the intra court appeal merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed.