Dismissed

Thakur Rajesh v. the State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC8 Feb 2023WPC/6560/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of a termination order against a contractual Gram Rojgar Sewak. The Court held that natural justice was satisfied as a notice was issued and the employee was given an opportunity to defend, with no need for a second show cause in such cases.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition for quashing the termination order is dismissed with no interference warranted.

Thakur Rajesh Vs the State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 6560 of 2013

¶3

Thakur Rajesh …. …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

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

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner cum District Programme Co-ordinator, Godda.

¶7

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Godda.

¶8

The Block Development Officer, Thakurgangti, Godda.

¶9

…. … Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioner : Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Priyanka Boby, AC to Sr.S.C.-I -----

¶14

3/ 08.02.2023 Heard the parties.

¶15

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 29.1.2013 (Annexure-6), whereby the petitioner has been terminated from service.

¶16

Admitted facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Gram Rojgar Sewak vide appointment letter dated 18.2.2009 purely on contractual basis. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner along with others on 7.9.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner was terminated from service with direction to deposit the amount of defalcation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court.

¶17

Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law on the ground that there is violation of principle of natural justice, as the petitioner has not even issued second show cause. Learned counsel adds that before terminating the petitioner, a second show cause notice ought to have been issued as to why his service be not terminated. She also submits that as per direction, a sum of Rs. 84319.25 has been deposited by the petitioner and as such, the order of termination should be quashed and set aside.

¶18

Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed. Ms. Priyanka Boby, learned counsel representing the State submits that the petitioner’s appointment was on contractual basis. However, from the counter affidavit, learned counsel has been able to demonstrate that notice was

¶19

¶20

given to the petitioner before his termination and as such, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submits that the termination order dated 29.1.2013 is fully justified and legal, as the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Co-ordinate and the Deputy Commissioner is the same authority and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is fully justified.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties across the Bar, this Court finds that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order is falsified in view of the specific averments made in the counter affidavit. The petitioner has been given ample opportunity to present his case. Therefore, the plea of learned counsel in this respect is also beyond the record. From the counter affidavit, it appears that the notice was issued to the petitioner, whereby clarification was asked within three days. The petitioner’s appointment itself was made purely on temporary basis. Law is well settled that any order visiting the civil consequence, the provisions of natural justice is attracted. In the present case, the petitioner was given opportunity to defend his case and there is no need for issuance of second show cause notice in the case of contractual employee. Therefore, the impugned order is fully justified. No interference is warranted.

¶22

This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)

¶24

R.Kr.

Thakur Rajesh v. the State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thakur Rajesh v. the State of Jharkhand And 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

Nahun Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Shivdani Prasad Vs Human Resource Development

Ram Nandan Prasad Sinha Vs Industry Department

Samuel Dungdung Vs Police

Arun Prasad Sahu Vs Home Department And Ors.

Suresh Ravidas Vs the Office of the Lokayukta Jharkhand through Its Deputy Secretary