Jagdeva Jat vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Ajay Rastogi, J.—The Petitioner, who was working purely on contract basis since 12/08/2008 as Gram Rojgar Sahayak under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme introduced by the Government but because of some alleged financial irregularities being committed by him at one stage, was placed under suspension vide order dt. 15/06/2009 and subsequently terminated vide order dt. 21/07/2009 which was assailed by him by filing CWP-5206/2010 which came to be decided on 03/05/2010 with directions to consider the representation and pass speaking order within six weeks.

After complaint being received in regard to the alleged financial irregularities, it was examined by the enquiry officer who submitted his report in which a finding was recorded that the Petitioner did not prepared job cards as per Schedule-7 appended to the Act, 2005 and issued separate job cards under his own signatures to various persons and their family members and as per the MB (measurement book), excess amount was sanctioned and paid to such alleged persons and taking note of the enquiry 2 report, representation submitted by the Petitioner was rejected assigning reasons vide order impugned dt. 21/07/2010.

Counsel submits that the finding, which has been recorded by the authority under the order impugned, is unsustainable and no such document on which reliance has been placed by the Respondents while passing the order impugned has been supplied to him and in such circumstances, the finding is not sustainable and the order of termination deserves to be quashed.

The submission made is of no substance for the reasons that the Petitioner was appointed purely on contract basis under the Act, 2005. No right is otherwise conferred and his services are regulated in terms of the agreement being executed between the parties. However, before taking a final decision, after the order of this Court, opportunity of hearing was afforded to him and in the enquiry, which was held, a finding was recorded that he has committed financial irregularities and specific names of such persons, to whom job cards were issued by the Petitioner under his own signatures, have also been mentioned and payment was made in excess of the sanctioned amount and the Petitioner cannot escape from his responsibility in regard to the financial irregularities being committed. The authority 3 has assigned cogent reasons while rejecting his representation. After going through the order impugned, this Court does not find any error being committed by the authority in rejecting the representation made.

Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.