Jharkhand High Court
Pankaj Kumar Sharma vs State Of Jharkhand on 2 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3672 of 2020
Pankaj Kumar Sharma, son of Paramanand Sharma .... Petitioner.
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj.
4. District Superintendent of Education - cum - District Programme Officer,
Jharkhand Education Project Council, Sahibganj.
5. Chairman, Jharkhand Education Project Council, New Cooperative
Building, Shyamli Colony, Doranda, Ranchi
.... .... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK
(Through Video Conferencing)
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG
For the JEPC Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
-----
07/02.09.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner has approached before this Court with a prayer for
quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 341, dated 12.04.2017, issued by
the District Superintendent of Education - cum - District Programme Officer,
Jharkhand Education Project Council, Sahibganj, whereby petitioner has been
removed from the post of Cluster Resource Person, CRC, Upgraded Middle
School, Karmatola, Mandro. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon
the respondents to reinstate him to the post of Cluster Resource Person, CRC,
Upgraded Middle School, Karmatola, Mandro along with full consequential
benefits and back wages and interest for the intervening period. Petitioner has
further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider his case in light
of order and direction dated 29.11.2019, passed in W.P.(S) No. 4663 of 2017,
order dated 16.12.2019, passed in W.P.(S) No. 5839 of 2017 and the order dated
04.02.2020, passed in W.P.(S) No. 5925 of 2017.
At the very outset, Mr. S.S. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner very strenuously urges that the impugned order has been issued in
gross violation of principles of natural justice. No norms or service condition
have been followed while issuing the impugned order. Even the show-cause
notice issued to the petitioner was just a formality as the same has been issued
after order of termination. The service of the petitioner being contractual in
nature, was put to an end. Placing heavy reliance on several Judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, learned counsel laid emphasis that the
termination amounts to snatching the livelihood of an employee and even in
case of contractual employment, if it leads to civil and evil consequences, the
cardinal principle of natural justice is attracted and any order issued in violation
of the principles of natural justice is fit to be quashed and set aside. Learned
counsel further places heavy reliance towards Annexures-7, 8 and 9 to the writ
petition which are orders dated 29.11.2019, 16.12.2019 and 04.02.2020, passed
in W.P.(S) No. 4663 of 2017, W.P.(S) No. 5839 of 2017 and W.P.(S) No. 5925 of
2017 respectively.
Learned counsel appearing for the State does not dispute the contention
of learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents -
JEPC submits that counter affidavit has not been filed. He however does not
dispute that similar writ petitions have already been disposed of by this Court.
Having heard counsel for the parties and considering fact and
circumstances of the case, this writ petition is also being disposed of in light of
orders dated 29.11.2019, 16.12.2019 and 04.02.2020, passed in W.P.(S) No.
4663 of 2017, W.P.(S) No. 5839 of 2017 and W.P.(S) No. 5925 of 2017.
Consequently, impugned order issued vide Memo No. 341, dated
12.04.2017, issued by the District Superintendent of Education - cum - District
Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project Council, Sahibganj, is hereby
quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed on the solitary ground of
violation of principles of natural justice leaving it open to the respondents to
proceed afresh, if so advised, giving an opportunity to the petitioner to show-
cause and take a fresh decision, in accordance with law. As a consequence of
quashment of impugned order, petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service.
However, consequential benefits shall depend on the final outcome and decision
taken by the respondents after giving full opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
The writ petition stands allowed.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)
RC/
