Jharkhand High Court
Arvind Kumar Ravi vs The State Of Jharkhand Through It Chief ... on 1 October, 2024
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N.Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2349 of 2024
----------
Arvind Kumar Ravi, aged about-33 years, Son of Krishna Ram, Village-
Joberaya, P.O.-Nawada, P.S.-Garhwa, Dist.-822114 (Jharkhand)
............ Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand through it Chief Secretary, having its office at
project Bhavan, Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Jharkhand
(834004)
2.The Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India,
(Pradhanmantri Mantri Awas Yojna-Rural Division), officiating at Krishi
Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, P.O. & P.S.-Sansad Marg, New Delhi-
110001
3.The Secretary, Department of Rural Development, 1st Floor, FFP Building,
HEC Campus, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand-
834002
4.The Commissioner, Palamu Division, P.O.-Sadar Medininagar P.S.-Sadar
Medininagar, Dist.-Palamu, Jharkhand (822101).
5.The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S.-Garhwa, Dist.-Garhwa,
Jharkhand (822114)
6.The District Development Commissioner, P.O. & P.S.-Garhwa, Dist.-
Garhwa, Jharkhand (822114)
7.The Director, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Garhwa, P.O.
& P.S.-Garhwa, Dist.-Garhwa, Jharkhand (822114)
8.The Block Development Officer, Dandai, P.o. & P.S.-Dandai, Dist.-
Garhwa, Jharkhand (822133)
9.Smt. Vidhyawati Devi, W/O-Manoj Prasad, Village-Dandai, P.O. & P.S.-
Dandai, Dist.-Garhwa, Jharkhand (822133)
............ Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP-II
Mr. Rishabh Kaushal, AC to GP-II
----------
04/ 01.10.2024 Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner has assailed the order dated 21.02.2024 (Annexure-12) by
which services of the petitioner has been terminated.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
order passed by respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa is not tenable in
the eyes of law even though appointment has been made on contractual
basis. Learned counsel further submits that order is stigmatic and termination
simplicitor should be quashed and set aside as opportunity of hearing has not
been given to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State draws the attention towards
counter-affidavit and submits that ample opportunity of hearing has been
given to the petitioner even the matter was enquired and in thorough enquiry
the petitioner was found guilty of charges and instead of passing harsh order
which may prejudice future career of the petitioner, order of termination
simplicitor has been issued which is fully justified. Learned counsel further
submits that argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
not tenable in the eyes of law, in view of the fact that petitioner's
appointment was on contractual basis. Learned counsel further submits that
following the cardinal principle of natural justice the order of termination
simplicitor has been issued which is not stigmatic.
5. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, across the
bar, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in
the instant writ petition. The judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench is of
no assistance to him. However, it is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that in LPA. No.82 of 2023 it was observedthat "if the appellant
applies for the job, the order passed by the authority concerned will not
stand in the way to get employment." In the instant case, nothing has been
whispered in the impugned order that order will come in the way of
employment and as such, such observation as made in LPA No.82 of 2023 is
not required, however on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, for
the ends of justice, this Court observes that if the petitioner seeks fresh
employment the impugned order will not come in the way of his future
employment.
6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
Rohit/-
