Jharkhand High Court
Sadanand Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 19 August, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:24273
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No.4084 of 2025
-----
Sadanand Mahato, son of late Hari Mahato, resident of village
Khiri, PO Saro, PS Ichagarh, District Seraikela Kharsawan,
Jharkhand ... Petitioner(s).
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Rural
Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, PO and PS
Dhurwa, District Ranchi
2.Deputy Commissioner, Seraikela Kharsawan
... Respondent(s).
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anil Kr. Singh, AC to GP-I
.........
02 /19.08.2025: Heard the parties.
2. This writ petition can be disposed of at this stage itself on
the limited issue.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Rojgar Sewak in
MNREGA Scheme on 05.09.2007. The appointment letter was
issued by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Program
Coordinator, Seraikella-Kharsawan. Vide the impugned decision
contained in clause 3.2 of the Memo No. 151(A) dated 28.02.2025
the petitioner has been dismissed from service.
4. After going through the records, I find that admittedly the
petitioner was appointed on contractual basis. He was working as
Rojgar Sewak. The reasons for removing the petitioner from service
is that a criminal case has been instituted against the petitioner
being Ichagarh PS Case No. 111 of 2024 under section 47(a),
47(b), 47(c), 47(e) and 55 of the Jharkhand Excise Act.
5. After going through the decision which is contained in
paragraph no. 3.2 of the aforesaid document, I find that just
because a criminal case has been instituted against the petitioner
his services was not extended rather he was terminated. The
aforesaid order is stigmatic in nature and admittedly the said order
was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the
2025:JHHC:24273
petitioner. The counter affidavit does not even suggest that whether
any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner which clearly
strengthens the submission of the petitioner that no notice was
served to the petitioner. Even the impugned order also does not
suggest that any show cause was served to the petitioner.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "U.P. State
Transport Corporation and Others vs. Brijesh Kumar and
Another" reported in 2024 SCC OnLine 2282 at paragraph no. 19
has held as follows:
"19. The services of the respondent have been determined
solely on the ground of misconduct as alleged but without
holding any regular inquiry or affording any opportunity of
hearing to him. The termination order has been passed on
the basis of some report which probably was not even
supplied to the respondent. No show cause notice appears to
have been issued to the respondent. Therefore, the order of
termination of his services, even if on contractual basis, has
been passed on account of alleged misconduct without
following the Principles of Natural Justice. The termination
order is apparently stigmatic in nature which could not have
been passed without following the Principles of Natural
Justice."
7. As per the aforesaid judgment even a contractual
employee who is sought to be removed from service has to be
given proper show cause notice before removing him. Admittedly
the aforesaid procedure has not been followed in this case. In
violation of principal of natural justice, the petitioner who was
working since 2007 has been removed.
8. Thus, the impugned order so far as this petitioner is
concerned, is set aside.
9. Liberty is reserved with the respondents to proceed a fresh
after giving appropriate opportunity to hearing to the petitioner.
10. This writ petition stands disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Tanuj/
