Binod Kumar Singh Son Of Sri ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1314 Jhar

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                W.P.(S) No. 2103 of 2010

            Binod Kumar Singh son of Sri Chandra Mauleshwar Prasad Singh,
            resident of Farm Area, Road No. 21, Qr. No. 25-27 Kadma, P.O. and
            P.S. Kadma, District East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur
                                                          ...    ...      Petitioner
                                       Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Human Resources
               Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, having
               office at Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
            2. The Director, Jharkhand Education Project, Government of
               Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, P.O. and P.S.
               Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
            3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development
               Department, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project
               Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
            4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Kolhan division,
               Chaibasa, P.O. and P.S. Chaibasa, District Singhbhum West
            5. The District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme
               Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Singhbhum East,
               Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, District-Singhbhum East
            6. The Block Education Extension Officer cum Coordinator,
               Jharkhand Education Project, Jamshedpur, East Singhhbhum, P.O.
               and P.S. Sakchi, District-Singhbhum East
                                                   ...         ...     Respondents
                                       ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate

---

Through video conferencing

6/01.04.2022 Heard Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2,5 and 6.

3. Nobody appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1,3 and 4.

4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

(i) "To quash/set aside the letter no. 1401 dated 09.12.2009 issued by the District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur (Respondent No.

5) whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated with immediate effect.

(ii) To direct the petitioner to reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages.

(iii)Cost of litigation be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 and submits that certain allegation was levelled against the petitioner on account of surprise inspection and there was one letter issued by the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, dated 01.12.2009 which indicated that the petitioner is to be terminated after asking to show cause. She submits that a show cause reply was also filed from the side of the petitioner but the same has been rejected by non-speaking order by simply stating that the reply was not found satisfactory and apparently the impugned order has been passed on the basis of pre conceived mind and under the dictates of the Higher Authority.

6. Learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 2472 of 2010 wherein on the basis of same communication dated 01.12.2009, the petitioner of the said case was also terminated and this court was of the view that the Secretary unnecessarily issued a direction upon the District Superintending Officer due to which the District Superintendent of Education did not act with his independent mind. Learned counsel submits that principles of natural justice require that the person who is considering the show cause reply should be in a position to act with his independent mind and the case being squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment, the impugned judgment be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand opposed the prayer and has submitted that the employment is purely contractual and therefore no relief be granted to the petitioner. However, during the course of argument, he has not been able to dispute that the case of the petitioner appears to be squarely covered by the judgment passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 2472 of 2010.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that the petitioner has been terminated vide order dated 09.12.2009 on the basis of certain allegation to which the petitioner had filed a show cause reply and the show cause reply is on record. The impugned

order further reflects that a communication dated 01.12.2009 was issued by the Secretary, Human Resource Development Department cum State Project Director indicated that the petitioner has to be removed after giving show cause. It appears that the authority while passing the impugned order was influenced by the aforesaid communication dated 1.12.2009. Similar situation has been considered by this court in W.P. (S) No. 2472 of 2010 wherein the impugned order was set aside and matter was remanded for fresh decision. This court finds that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by W.P. (S) No. 2472 of 2010.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.12.2009 passed by the District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur (Respondent No. 5) is hereby set aside.

10. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that as on date the matter is to be considered by District Education Officer cum District Programme Officer and therefore the matter be remanded to the said authority for fresh consideration.

11. The petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned District Education Officer cum District Programme Officer on 25.04.2022 along with the records of this case, with a representation and a copy of this order and upon the appearance of the petitioner, the said authority is directed to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the basis of reply to show cause already submitted by the petitioner.

12. The order be passed within a period of four weeks and be communicated to the petitioner through speed post at the postal address, to be provided by the petitioner in his representation. It is made clear that this court has not entered into the merits of the rival claims between the parties.

13. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit