Sachidanand Kushwaha vs State Of Jharkhand

Ananda Sen, J

By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(i) For quashing of order passed vide memo no. 30 dated 17.01.2022 (Annexure-9) whereby and whereunder the service of the petitioner has been dismissed without following due process of law and without assigning valid reason. The order has been passed in an arbitrary manner and in colorable exercise of power.

(ii) Further upon quashing of order passed vide memo no. 30 dated 17.01.2022, regularize the service of the petitioner as the petitioner has been working since 2008 on contractual basis and is eligible for regularization of his services."

Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.

Facts of the case are as follows:-

3.1. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as a Computer Operator on contractual basis under MGNREGA Scheme.

3.2. A show cause notice as contained in Letter No.26 dated 12.01.2022 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), was issued to the petitioner. The said show cause notice suggests that despite repeated instructions by the Undersigned, the petitioner was making demands of Labour in the Material Based Scheme, where no Labour is required.

3.3. The petitioner gave a detailed reply vide Letter dated 14.01.2022 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). In the said reply, the petitioner had highlighted the procedure of making the demands and classification of work performed by different officials involved in the aforesaid Scheme.

3.4. Thereafter, the work contract of the petitioner has been terminated without considering the show cause reply of the petitioner, vide impugned Office Order as contained in Memo No.30 dated 17.01.2022 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), which is under challenge in this writ petition.

After going through the impugned order of termination, I find that the grounds taken by the petitioner has not been dealt with by the respondents. The respondents have simply stated that the reply which has been given by the petitioner is not satisfactory. The reason for rejecting the grounds taken by the petitioner, has not been discussed.

4.1. When a show cause has been issued and the petitioner has taken specific points, those should have been dealt with by the concerned officer before rejecting the grounds taken by the petitioner in the show cause reply.

4.2. Rejecting the show cause reply in one line by stating that it is not satisfactory, does not meet the ends of justice.

Thus, I am inclined to set aside the impugned Office Order as contained in Memo No.30 dated 17.01.2022 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition). The same is hereby set aside.

5.1. However, the matter is remanded back to the Block Development Officer, Manjhiaon, to decide the show cause reply given by the petitioner afresh, and thereafter pass a reasoned order dealing with the defence which has been raised by the petitioner.

5.2. If it is found that the reply to the show cause notice is acceptable, then appropriate order should be passed reinstating the petitioner or placing the petitioner in any other post if the original post is not vacant.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.

Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.