Gauhati High Court
Joydeep Nath Mazarbhuiya vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 10 February, 2023
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010047042021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1819/2021
JOYDEEP NATH MAZARBHUIYA
S/O. LT. JMANENDRA NATH NAZARBHUIYA, VILL. BORNAGAD, P.O.
KALIBARI BAZAR, P.S. ALGAPUR, DIST. HAILAKANDI, PIN-788150, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., PANJABARI, GUWAHATI-37.
2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
HAILAKANDI.
3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
HAILAKANDI ZILLA PARISHAD.
4:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
HAILAKANDI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK.
5:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OFFICE OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER
HAILAKANDI.
6:THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME COORDINATOR
MGNREGA
HAILAKANDI
Page No.# 2/4
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A Y CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
ORDER
Date : 10-02-2023
Heard Mr. T.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr.
NK. Debnath, learned standing counsel, P&RD Department, Assam appearing for the
respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and Mr. C.S. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam
appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 6.
The order of termination from service dated 07-02-2018 issued by the Deputy
Commissioner, Hailakandi, i.e. the respondent No. 2 is under challenge in this writ
petition. It is the case of the writ petitioner that no show cause notice was issued to him
before issuing the impugned order of termination of service.
The petitioner herein was earlier appointed as Accredited Engineer (AE) on
contractual basis, in the Hailakandi Development Block, by the order dated 03-12-2010.
Although the appointment of the petitioner was on contractual and temporary in nature,
yet, his services were extended from time to time. Eventually, by the order dated 07-02-
2018, the service of the petitioner was terminated.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 07-02-2018 goes to show that the service
of the petitioner was terminated by alleging some misconduct against him.
Page No.# 3/4
Notwithstanding the same, neither any show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner
nor was he given any opportunity of being heard in the matter. The respondents counsel
has tried to justify such a recourse by submitting that being an contractual employee, he
did not have any vested right in the matter and since one month's salary was given to the
petitioner in lieu of notice, there is no illegality in the process adopted by the department.
Mr. T.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of
this Court to the order dated 05-04-2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4275/2018
as well as the order dated 29-01-2021 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1964/2020 to contend that
similar orders of termination, in respect of similarly situated contractual employees under
the department, have been set aside by this Court and petitioners' were directed to be
reinstated in service. The authorities have also complied with such order of this Court.
Since, the case of the petitioner is also similar, hence, it is a covered case under the
aforesaid judgment and orders passed by this Court and therefore, a similar order is
required to be passed in this case as well.
From a careful reading of the orders dated 05-04-2019 as well as 29-01-2021, I
find force in the submission of Mr. Choudhury. It is correct that service of a contractual
employee can be dispensed with, if the same is found to be unsatisfactory. However, an
order of termination of service must not only be in accordance with the terms of the
contract but must also comply with the principles of natural justice. Since, misconduct has
been imputed against the petitioner, hence, he was entitled to an opportunity of being
heard in the matter, more so since the order, on the face of it, is stigmatic. But, no such
opportunity was granted to him. The order of termination dated 07-02-2018, having been
Page No.# 4/4
issued in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, is held to be unsustainable
in law. The same is accordingly set aside.
The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within 07 days from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Upon his reinstatement, it will be open for
the departmental authorities to proceed against him afresh, if so advised, by following
due process of law.
Insofar as the claim of back wages etc. is concerned, this Court is not inclined to
make any observation in that regard, save and except, providing that it will be open for
the petitioner to seek redress under the law, if so advised.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
GS
Comparing Assistant
