Disposed

Deepak Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Rural Development

Jharkhand HC17 Jan 2023WPC/2124/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge directed respondents to conduct an enquiry and pass a reasoned order on allegations of malpractice against a disengaged contractual worker. The court remanded the matter to ensure the petitioner is given an opportunity to place his case while acknowledging the record shows prior notice was absent.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to hear the petitioner and pass a reasoned order on the merits after affording him an opportunity to place his case.

Deepak Kumar Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand through… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2124 of 2019

¶2

Deepak Kumar Sinha... ….Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Ranchi.

¶5

The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma.

¶6

The Block Development Officer, Domchanch, Koderma. ...Respondents.

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN .

¶8

For the petitioner(s): Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, SC (L&C)-III Mr. Rahul Dev, AC to SC (L&C)-III

¶9

11/17.01.2023:

¶10

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing Memo No. 150 dated 6.2.2018 issued by respondent No. 2, whereby, the petitioner, who was working as Computer Operator, has been disengaged by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma.

¶11

The allegation against the petitioner was that he committed malpractice. While entering data in computer, he manipulated the same and entered the name of wrong beneficiaries in place of correct ones. On complaint, enquiry was conducted and it was found that the petitioner was involved in said malpractice, thus, he was disengaged vide letter dated 6.2.2018 as contained in Memo No. 150.

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the issuance of letter of disengagement dated 6.2.2018. He further submits that after disengagement, a show cause notice dated 9.2.2018 was issued under the signature of Block Development Officer, Domchanch, Koderma, but surprisingly letter is back dated i.e. signed on 9.1.2018. He lastly submits that without issuing any notice, the petitioner has been disengaged.

¶13

Counsel for the State submits that admittedly the petitioner was a contractual worker and his contract has been terminated. Since the contract of the petitioner has been terminated, there cannot be any reinstatement. So far as allegation is concerned, he submits that a Committee was set up and enquiry was conducted on the allegation levelled against the petitioner. The allegation has been found to be proved. He also submits that show cause notice is at Annexure-7 to the writ petition.

¶14

After going through the contention of the parties and the writ petition, I find that the petitioner has been disengaged vide Memo No. 150 dated 6.2.2018 by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged on contract. On the allegation that he made wrong entries in computer deliberately and entered the name of wrong persons to be beneficiaries, he was disengaged. The notice which was served upon the petitioner, which is dated 9.2.2018 as contained in Letter No. 2, asking him to show cause as to why not appropriate

¶15

¶16

action be taken for illegality, which he has committed. The notice is dated 9.2.2018 whereas, the order of removal is of 6.2.2018.

¶17

When I go through the supplementary counter affidavit, specially paragraph 13, I find that it is admitted case that notice is dated 9.2.2018 i.e. after the petitioner was disengaged. Thus, before disengaging the petitioner, no notice was issued to him. Further the reply to show cause notice was also given on 9.2.2018, which suggests that before disengaging the petitioner, no notice was issued to him. Thus, without issuing show cause, the petitioner has been disengaged. Even, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to defend his case. 7. The fact as on date is that the petitioner has been disengaged. Thus, I direct the respondents to hear the petitioner and pass a reasoned order as to whether the defence of the petitioner is acceptable or not. If the defence of the petitioner is acceptable, the respondents will pass an appropriate order in favour of the petitioner and will ensure, if possible, to re-engage the petitioner.

¶18

In the event, it is found that the petitioner is guilty of the allegation levelled against him, the impugned order will remain effective but at least one opportunity should be given to the petitioner to place his case before the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, who will hear the petitioner and pass a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Be it noted that this order will not be treated to be an order reinstating the petitioner.

¶19

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of.

¶20

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶21

Anu/-CP2.

Deepak Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Rural Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Rural Development

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

Ashok Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Kumar Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

Nisha Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anant Kumar Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranjan Kishore Hansda Vs Human Resources Department