Santosh Kumar vs State Of Bihar Through And Ors

A counter affidavit has been filed during the course of the hearing of this petition. Let it be taken on record.

Heard Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi, learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned Advocate for the State.

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.06.2019, passed by the Managing Director, Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (in short BUIDCO), Patna, whereby he has been removed from service.

It appears that a complaint was made by one Ramjee Rana before Hon'ble the Lokayukta, Bihar and during the investigation of which it was found that tube-wells were not dug to sufficient depth leading to such tube-wells becoming dysfunctional. On such allegation, the matter was referred by Hon'ble the Lokayukta to the Superintendent of Vigilance Department. The matter was inquired by a Committee, which though included the complainant, but the petitioner was not informed. A physical verification of some of the tube-wells, which were dug under the supervision of the petitioner, were verified and it was found that all such tube-wells were dug-up only till the depth of 60-65 feet, even though the required depth was stated to be 90 feet.

The aforesaid report was taken into account and a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, who replied to the same giving his justification.

By the order impugned in the present petition, the explanation given by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of same being unsatisfactory and he has been remove from service.

It is important to be noted that the petitioner is under the contractual employment with the BUIDCO and his contractual tenure is renewed on yearly basis. The petitioner has been working on the post of Junior Engineer since 2011 and his service was extended on yearly basis.

In the present instance, the service of the petitioner could have continued till the end of 2018, but before the term expired, because of such report at the instance of Hon'ble the Lokayukta, the order of removal has been passed.

The primary thrust of the petitioner against the order impugned is that the enquiry was conducted behind his back and that the order removing him from service/terminating the contract is a non-speaking order.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is nothing on record to indicate the manner in which the report has been obtained and that the concerned tube-wells were dug to a lesser depth. The petitioner is in a quandary whether while physical verification was being done, the tube-wells were exhumed to find out the depth. In the absence of any modus known to the petitioner for coming to the conclusion that the tube-wells were not dug-up properly, the report looses all its significance and could not have been relied upon for terminating the contractual engagement of the petitioner midway.

It has further been submitted that the presence of the complainant in the team and the conspicuous absence of the petitioner makes the report absolutely suspect. The suspicion over the fairness of the entire procedure gets further confounded by the order of termination of service which does not indicate any reason why the explanation of the petitioner has not been accepted.

For the aforesaid reasons, viz., the enquiry having been conducted behind the back of the petitioner and the order terminating the service not indicating the reasons for rejection of the explanation offered by the petitioner, the order impugned cannot be sustained on the simple logic of the same being an uninformed order.

But, apart from this, an employer has a right not to extend the contract of the employee/petitioner, but removing him from service, casting stigma on him, which might come in his way for further contractual or regular employment with the Government is not justified.

For the aforesaid reasons, the order impugned in the present petition cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and, therefore, is set-aside.

The matter is remitted to the Managing Director, BUIDCO, Patna (respondent No. 3) to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to explain his cause and, thereafter, a decision be taken with reasons within a period of eight weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed off.