Full Judgment
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5075 of 2010 ------- Amit Sagar S/o Sri Vidya Sagar, R/o Nagar Untari Opposite Than Road, P.O & P.S. Nagar Untari, District: Garhwa. ... Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa 3.District Education Superintendent-cum-District Program Officer, Sarwa Siksha Abhiyan, Garhwa 4.District Eduction Officer-cum-District Program Officer, Sarwa Siksha Abhiyan, Garhwa. Respondents ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Devesh Krishna, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mrs. Priya Shreshtha , J.C to Sr. S.C.II05 Dated:
7. h May, 2015 Per Pramath Patnaik, J.: In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing of letter no. 306 dated 30.03.2010 (Annexure
4) issued by respondent no. 4 terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Accountant-cum-Computer Operator at Kasturba Gandhi Balika Awashiya School, Meral and for stay of the appointment on the said post, as advertised vide letter no. 1337 Garhwa dated 27.08.2010 (Annexure 6).
2. Sans details, the facts in a nutshell, is that petitioner was appointed as Accountant-cum-Computer Operator on 8.11.2006 in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Awasiya School, Meral on contractual basis vide deed of agreement dated 08.11.2006 (Annexure
1) and pursuant to the said agreement, the petitioner joined on 9.11.2006. It has been stated that the petitioner continued to discharge his duties with complete devotion, but to the utter surprise and consternation, the District Education Officer-cum-District Program Officer, Sarva Siksha Abhiyaan, Garhwa vide its letter no. 306 dated 30.03.2010 (Annexure
4) terminated the petitioner from the said post purportedly on certain 2 financial irregularity. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached this Court invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
3. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents controverting the averments made in the writ application. It has been stated, inter alia in the counter affidavit that the appointment of the petitioner in the said school was purely on contract basis with certain terms and conditions including rendering of satisfactory service, but, the petitioner could not maintain the same during his service period. It has further been stated on receipt of complaint from various sources an inquiry was conducted vide memo no. 1410 dated 07.12.2009 (Annexure A) consisting of five members. Further an audit was also done and in the light of the audit report, an explanation was sought from the petitioner and one Warden-Smt. Pushpa Kumari vide Memo no. 231 dated 13.03.2010 (Annexure C), to which, the petitioner replied vide letter dated 21.03.2010 accepting that financial irregularities has been done by him. It has further been submitted that on perusal of Annexure 1, it is amply clear that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis and as per the terms and conditions laid down in agreement, the services of the petitioner can be terminated on giving one month's notice by the Deputy Commissioner and in the present case also order of termination has been passed with the consent of Deputy Commissioner. It has been stated that on the above counts, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
5. On perusal of Annexure 1 to the writ petition, it is quite evident 3 that the appointment of the petitioner was on contractual basis on the post of Accountant-cum-Computer Operator and as per Clause IV of the deed of agreement dated 08.11.2006, if the services of any employee is found to be unsatisfactory or his services is not required, then one month's prior notice is to be given before termination of services of the petitioner. In the instant case, it appears that charge- sheet was served on the petitioner on 13.03.2010 vide Annexure C to the couturier affidavit and pursuant thereto the petitioner submitted his reply vide letter dated 21.03.2010, but, in a hot haste manner, the impugned order at Annexure 4 was passed visiting the petitioner with evil/civil consequence.
6. After perusing the documents on record and hearing the counsels at length, the impugned order at Annexure 4 is liable to be interfered with due to following facts and reasons: (I).Admittedly the petitioner was appointed as Accountant-cum- computer Operator in the year 2006 as per the deed of agreement dated 8.11.2006 and the petitioner's service is governed by terms and conditions mentioned in Annexure 1, but, the impugned order has been passed without compliance of Clause IV of the terms and conditions thereby rendering the same as non est in the eye of law. Clause IV of the said deed of agreement says that the services of the petitioner can be terminated after one month's notice by the Deputy Commissioner, but, in the instant case the same has been given complete go by rendering the same nullity in the eye of law. (ii).Though the scope of judicial review is very limited, but, in the instant case, on perusal of impugned order, it appears that the principles of audi alteram partem has not been adhered to prior to termination of services of the petitioner rendering it a nullity, 4 which is infraction of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned order at Annexure 4 is not legally sustainable on that score. (iii).Even otherwise, in the instant case, the charge was framed on 13.03.2010 and only one week's time was given for submitting explanation and after submission of reply on 21.03.2010, immediately the impugned order was passed on 30.03.2010 without whispering anything on the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order under Annexure 4 suffers from non-application of mind, which is not legally sustainable.
7. On conspectus of factual and documentary evidences, I am of the considered view that the impugned order at Annexure 4 is not legally sustainable, accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service, if there is no legal impediment in reinstating the petitioner in service. However, disposal of the writ petition will not preclude the respondents from taking action afresh/de nove strictly in accordance with law.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. (Pramath Patnaik, J.) Alankar/-