Dhruv Kumar Mital vs State Of Jharkhand

Ananda Sen, J

The petitioner by filing this writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs:

(i) To quash/set aside the vide memo no. 335 dated 25.03.17 (Annexure-7) issued by the respondent no. 5 (District Superintendent of Education cum District Programming Officer, Chatra) whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 5 had terminated the petitioner from the post of Block Programming Officer for the Block Pathalgara in the light of order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Chatra.

(ii) For direction upon the respondents to take immediate necessary step to re-instate the service of petitioner as a Block Programming Officer for the block Pathalgara.

(iii) For direction upon the respondents to take immediate necessary step to pay the honorarium to the petitioner which is still lying payable by the respondents on the illegal termination of the petitioner from the post of Block Programming Officer for the block, Pathalgara.

The case of the petitioner in short is that petitioner was selected for the post of Block Programming Officer on contract basis in a Meeting dated 29.11.2008 of Selection Committee of Jharkhand Education Project. He joined on the said post on 11.12.2008 at district office at Chatra.

Vide letter dated 09.03.2017 the petitioner was show-caused by respondent no. 5 and his Honorarium was withheld as there was irregularities in purchasing of dress and tables. Vide letter dated 15.03.2017 the petitioner filed his reply. Thereafter, being unsatisfied respondent no. 5 vide letter dated 16.03.2017 issued 2nd show cause notice. Finally vide letter dated 25.03.2017 the petitioner was terminated from service.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to fresh allotment of work of the petitioner one para teacher became angry and made a false complaint against the petitioner through WhatsApp to the Deputy Collector due to which he was show caused. The allegation made against the petitioner was false and he was not anyway involved in this matter.

Learned counsel for the State submitted that on a complaint received by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, he formed a Committee to inquire into the matter which found the allegation against the petitioner to be true, thus, he was show-caused and as the explanation given by the petitioner was found unsatisfactory he was given a 2nd show-cause and the petitioner was terminated from service. There is no procedural irregularities committed by the respondents. Thus, this writ petition needs to be dismissed.

After going through the materials on records, I find that the petitioner is a contractual employee. He was show caused for the irregularities in purchase of dress and tables.

Initially on a complaint received by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra he formed a 4-Man Committee which found that the allegation to be true against the petitioner, as the petitioner was apparently involved in the purchase of furniture and dresses and there was irregularities. When he was show caused he gave a reply. The explanation of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory, thereafter, a second show cause was served. The petitioner didn’t reply to the second show cause within time and finally the petitioner was terminated. I don’t find any procedural illegality or irregularity committed by the respondents. They gave proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after conducting a proper proceeding, he was terminated. It has to be kept in mind that the petitioner was a contractual employee.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State Bank of India and Others vs. S.N. Goyal” reported in (2008) 8 SCC 92 has held as under:

“23. Where the enquiry was found to be fair and proper and the finding of guilt in the enquiry in respect of a serious charge was found to be valid, in the absence of any other valid ground of challenge, the courts below ought to have held that the penalty of removal from service did not warrant any interference and dismissed the suit. Be that as it may. We will not consider the matter on merits on the assumption that the averments in the plaint were sufficient to enable the court to consider this issue.”

In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the fact that the petitioner was a contractual employee and the procedure adopted by the respondents in the inquiry proceeding is fair and the fact that principle of natural justice has been followed, I find that the petitioner has rightly been terminated and there is no irregularities and illegality in the same. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.