Jagdish Kumar Jat vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the discharge of his contractual employment vide order dtd. 22.10.2009 on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak.

The petitioner was working as Gram Rojgar Sahayak in Panchayat Samiti, Mundwa, Dist. Nagaur. A notice Annex. 2 dtd. 2.6.2009 was served upon him to show cause as to why on the date of inspection carried out by the Block Development Officer on 25.4.2009, he was not even present and the villagers informed the Inspecting Authority that for last 2 to 3 days, he is not coming to the office and that is causing trouble in the Scheme of NREGA. Another notice was served upon him vide Annex. 4 dtd. 13.10.2009 calling upon him to furnish the explanation on 21.10.2009. The petitioner did not cooperate in the matter and did not appear before the concerned authorities and consequently, under the order of the Dist. Collector, Nagaur, who is the Coordinator of the Scheme under the NREGS Act, the contractual employment of the petitioner, who was working as Gram Rojgar Sahayak was discharged on 22.10.2009. The petitioner still obtained a certificate from the concerned Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Gothda on 11.12.2009 that the petitioner was working constantly from 13.4.2008 till date.

The respondents in their reply have produced notice Annex. R/1 dtd. 23.2.2010 calling upon the explanation of said sarpanch, Sh. Ram Niwas, Gram Panchayat, Gothda as to why the false certificate was issued in favour of the present petitioner, even though the petitioner failed to furnish any explanation for his constant absence and as would appear from the impugned order Annex. 5 dtd. 22.10.2009 it was reported that he was doing some other business and since he did not appear in the enquiry held against him, contract of said service was discharged.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kaushal Sharma, submitted that the petitioner gave his explanation for the date of inspection on 25.4.2009 that he was not in the office because he had gone to the Post Office, Bhadana for correction of some entries and no enquiry or verification was made from the concerned Post Office for his presence there.

On the other hand, Mr. Manish Patel, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner did not furnish any explanation and did not appear before the authority concerned and on the basis of material before the Coordinator of the Scheme, the discharge was otherwise passed by the Dist. Collector and the explanation of the concerned Sarpanch was also called. However, thereafter what action has been taken against the Sarpanch is not available on record.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that in view of disputed questions of facts as to whether the absence of petitioner was justified or not or on the other hand, whether the report furnished by the Inspecting Authority that he was irregular in attending his duties as Gram Rojgar Sahayak, the present writ petition is found to be not maintainable. There is no good reason shown in the present writ petition why the petitioner chose to remain absent and did not furnish any explanation with the evidence of remaining absent from duties on 25.4.2009 and even thereafter the certificate obtained from the Sarpanch and the argument raised on that basis that Gram Rojgar Sahayak is reporting for his duties and consequently, he should be permitted to work constantly in such position is not sustainable. The concerned government officials who are implementing these Schemes in the rural areas are duty bound to carry out inspection from time to time and report as to whether the elected persons or the contractual employees are regularly doing their duties or not. In the absence of any such explanation furnished by the petitioner, the contract of the petitioner has been rightly discharged by the Coordinator i.e. the Dist. Collector, Nagaur, no valid exception can be taken to the same. The respondents have also failed to point out as to why when the petitioner''s services were terminated on 22.10.2009, he was still found to be serving the said Gram Panchayat as per the Certificate of the Sarpanch till the date of certificate on 11.12.2009, two months after the alleged discharge date of 22.10.2009, except the so called explanation furnished by the respondents in Annex. R/1 dtd. 23.2.2010 that the explanation was called from the concerned Sarpanch. The respondents were expected to furnish upto date status of the action, if any, taken against the Sarpanch, but they have however failed to do so. Be that as it may, that does not entitle the petitioner to seek any quashing of impugned order Annex. 5 dtd. 22.10.2009 in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of disputed questions of facts involved in the writ petition.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.