Allowed

Tapan Barua v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Aug 2021WP(C)/3614/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed two writ petitions where contractual employees faced termination stigmatic in nature due to vague allegations. The court held that even for contractual appointees, natural justice requires a minimum notice calling for explanation before termination during the valid contract period. Impugned termination orders were set aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned termination orders set aside; petitioners to be allowed fresh departmental consideration for future engagement if service is required.

Tapan Barua Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010125672020

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3614/2020

¶5

TAPAN BARUA

¶6

S/O. SRI DAMBARUDHAR BARUAH, VILL. JABARIKUCHI, P.O. BARKOLA, PIN-784125, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEV. DEPTT., ASSAM, PANJABARI, JURIPAR, GUWAHATI-37, ASSAM.

¶10

2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER

¶11

DARRANG DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN-784125.

¶12

3:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR

¶13

DRDA DARRANG DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN-784125.

¶14

4:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

¶15

PACHIM MANGALDOI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK DIST. DARRANG PIN-784125

¶16

Page No.# 2/5

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. B GOGOI

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶19

Linked Case : WP(C)/6725/2018

¶20

RAKESH SARMAH S/O LATE DINESWAR SARMAH R/O VILL- TENGABARI WARD NO. 7 P.O. AND P.S. MANGALDAI PIN- 784125 DIST. DARRANG ASSAM.

¶21

VERSUS

¶22

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP. BY COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PANJABARI JURIPAR GUWAHATI- 37 ASSAM.

¶23

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶24

DARRANG DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN 784125. 3:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR

¶25

DRDA DARRANG DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN - 784125. 4:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PASCHIM MANGALDOI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK DIST. DARRANG PIN - 784125. -----------Advocate for : MR. A KHANIKAR Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.

¶26

Page No.# 3/5

¶27

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Date : 11-08-2021

¶30

The issue involved in both the writ petitions being identical, the same are taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. This Court has also taken into account the facts and circumstances and the limited relief, which the Court can grant to the petitioners.

¶31

The petitioner in WP (C) No. 3614/2020 was appointed as Gram Rojgar Sahayak under the Panchayat and Rural Development on 30-09-2009 under a scheme called “Earthern Bandh from Moza Khejuri Tal to Noa Nadi Mathauri” under MNGREGA for the year 2017-2018. It is an admitted position that the said engagement was on contractual basis and in fact, a contract was signed between the parties, where a definite tenure was fixed. Likewise the petitioner in WP (C ) No. 6725/2018 was appointed as an Accredited Engineer(DH) in the office of the Block Development Officer in the Panchim Mangaldoi Development Block vide letter dated 30-11-2015. The said appointment was also on contractual basis and was for a particular tenure.

¶32

It is the case of the petitioners that the tenure of their engagement were extended from time to time and their services were utilized in other schemes also. It is averred that the petitioners have served sincerely and without any blemish and were continuing in their service to the full satisfaction of their authorities. Both the petitioners are aggrieved by sudden termination of their service. The petitioner in WP (C) No. 3614/2020 submits that the termination was stigmatic in nature as allegations of mis-appropriation was made. Similarly the petitioner in WP (C ) No. 6725/2018 has expressed his grievance against his termination vide an order dated 07-05-2018 on certain vague allegations. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the principles of natural justice was grossly violated.

¶33

I have heard Ms. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 3614/2020 and Sri A. Khanikar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP (C ) No. 6725/2018.

¶34

Sri M. Nath, learned Standing counsel, PNRD, is present for the contesting

¶35

Page No.# 4/5

¶36

respondents, who submits that affidavit-in-opposition has also been filed in both the cases. Ms. S. Baruah, learned State counsel is also present, who has endorsed the submission of Sri Nath.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the allegations against them are absolutely vague and incorrect and have also drawn the attention of this court to relevant documents and materials to prima facie demonstrate that the allegations were baseless. It is also contended that even assuming that there were certain allegations, the petitioners ought to have been given an opportunity to explain before taking the extreme step to dis-continue their service before expiry of their term. On the other hand, Sri Nath, Department counsel submits that the appointment of the petitioners being contractual in nature, requirement of a full fledged disciplinary proceeding is not envisaged and a summary enquiry proceeding was initiated, in which serious allegations were found against the petitioners. The learned Standing counsel further submits that no indefeasible rights of the petitioners have been violated by the impugned action and the petitioners being contractual appointee, it has been specifically mentioned that in case of any violation, their service would be terminated.

¶38

The rival submissions for the contesting parties have been duly considered Before going into the issue in hand, certain admitted facts are to be recorded. Firstly, the engagement of the petitioners were contractual in nature, which was available for a particular tenure and the petitioners had continued in their respective posts on the strength of continuation order passed by the authorities. Though the petitioners have not annexed such continuation order, the materials on record would suggest that the extension order was given for about 6 months. Secondly, it is also an admitted fact that the dis-continuation of the petitioners by way of termination was not by way of termination simpliciter but termination on allegations. Both the aforesaid termination orders have got totally different connotations. While termination simpliciter can be resorted to without assigning any reason, termination with allegations definitely is attached with stigma. Therefore, a minimum adherence of principles of natural justice would be to give an opportunity, though such opportunity need not be an elaborate one, but a minimum notice calling for the explanation has to be given to the incumbents, which in the present case were admittedly not done. Therefore, without going into the materials brought on record by the petitioners to show that the allegation is

¶39

Page No.# 5/5

¶40

baseless, this Court is of the opinion that the termination of the service of the petitioners during the period when the contract was still in existence is not legally sustainable. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders of termination are required to be set aside. At the same time, this Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that the contract have in the meantime, come to an end, and in any case, the petitioners cannot be continued without orders passed for extension of their service.

¶41

In that view of the matter, while this Court interferes with the orders of termination of service, it is directed that such termination shall not come into the way for fresh consideration of the case of the petitioners in the department, if and when the department is of the view that the services are required to be engaged in any scheme which may come in future.

¶42

With the aforesaid observations, both the writ petitions stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Comparing Assistant

Tapan Barua v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapan Barua v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monolith Deb Vs United Bank of India and 4 Ors.

Nazrul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Kangbura Hanse Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Surovi Bora Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

All Assam Social Welfare Statistical Employees Association and 4 Ors. Vs Anowara Begum and 31 Ors.

Bijoy Basumatary and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.