4351 for an amount of Rs. 1,85,472/-. Due to such financial irregularities and misuse of Government money and gross indiscipline, he was found to be no longer fit to be engaged in contractual work with the State Government and therefore, his engagement was terminated with immediate effect. The petitioner, otherwise in his reply to the show-cause notice, denied the allegation made against him. He explained that transaction of money never happened physically and that the amount was deposited directly into the Bank account to the beneficiary concerned. This apart, he was not solely responsible for preparation and finalization of the M.R since the Gaon Panchayat as well as the village Monitoring Committee so constituted comprising of the local people played a vital role. The impugned Office Order dated 01.10.2021, however, does not reflect that the points raised by the petitioner had been duly considered. Therefore, this Court finds substance in the projection made by the petitioner. [12.] The learned counsel for the P&RD Department has strenuously argued that the petitioner has failed to rebut the specific statements made in paragraph Nos. 8, 9, 11 & 14 of the counter affidavit. However, on perusal of the same, it is seen that the stand taken by the respondent is that the petitioner was aware about the enquiry being done since he had accompanied the CEO concerned at the time of physical inspection. It is one thing to say that the person concerned
