Jharkhand High Court
Amit Sagar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 February, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2384 of 2017
Amit Sagar, S/O Sri VidyaSagar, R/O Nagar Untari Opposite Than Road,
PO + PS - NAGAR Untari& District - Garhwa. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa at PO + PS & District - Garhwa.
3. District Education Superintendent-cum-District Program Officer,
SarwaSikshaAbhiyan, Garhwa, at PO + PS & District - Garhwa.
4. District Education Officer-cum-District Program officer
SarwaSikshaAbhiyan, Garhwa, at PO + PS & District - Garhwa.
... ...
Respondents
---
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate
: Ms. Saba Ali, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mrs. Moushmi Chatterjee, AC to GA-V
---
th
07/06 February2025
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
2. This writ application can be disposed of on a very short issue.
3. The petitioner was appointed as an Accountant -cum- Computer Operator
on 08.11.2006 in Kasturba Gandhi Girl's Residential School on contract
basis. As his appointment is dated 08.11.2006, petitioner joined on
09.11.2006. Though the said agreement was for one year but the
petitioner was allowed to continue to discharge his service which was
ultimately revoked vide letter no. 306 dated 30.03.2010. Aggrieved by
the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble High
Court by filing a writ application bearing No. W.P.(S). No. 5075 of 2010.
The said writ application was heard at length by the learned Single Judge.
The learned Single Judge held that the order of termination is liable to be
interfered with and thus has set aside the same.
4. While allowing the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order,
learned Single Judge in its final order dated 07thMay 2015 at Para No. -
6, has held that the impugned order was passed without compliance of
Clause - IV of the terms and conditions, thus, the same is nonest. Further
the learned Single Judge has held that the principles of natural justice,
have not been adhered to prior to the termination of service of the
petitioner rendering the termination nullity.
5. The learned Single Judge further went out to conclude that the charge
was framed on 13.03.2010 and only one weeks' time was given for
submitting explanation.Immediately after filing the reply on 21.03.2010,
the impugned order dated30.03.2010 was passed. Without whispering
anything on the explanation,the services of the petitioner was terminated,
which is illegal.After arriving at the aforesaid finding, the learned Single
Judge quashed the termination order and directed to reinstate the
petitioner in service. Further the respondents were given liberty to take
action afresh /de-novo strictly in accordance with law. It is necessary to
quote Paragraph No. 7 of the aforesaid judgment:-
7. On conspectus of factual and documentary
evidences, I am of the considered view that the
impugned order at Annexure - 4 is not legally
sustainable, accordingly, the same is hereby quashed.
The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner
in service, if there is no legal impediment in reinstating
the petitioner in service. However, disposal of the writ
petition will not preclude the respondents from taking
action afresh / de-novo strictly in accordance with law.
6. From the records of this case, I find that after the aforesaid order was
passed, nothing was done from the ends of the respondents and the
petitioner was forced to file a contempt application for initiating
contempt proceeding which is numbered as Cont. (Civil Case) No. 302 of
2016.
7. In the said contempt application, the respondents produced an order dated
4th July 2016 before the learned Single Judge and thus the contempt
petition was dropped with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge before
the appropriate forum.
8. In impugned order dated 04th July 2017, the respondent has passed
similar orders i.e., removing the petitioner from service on the allegations
levelled against the petitioner which was the subject matter in the earlier
writ petitions. While going through the earlier orders passed in earlier
writ applications especially the direction in Paragraph No. 7 of the order,
which has been quoted above, I find that there was a specific direction to
initiate a proceeding afresh /de-novo. The word de-novofrom Black's
Law Dictionary, 12th Edition, suggests independent determination
without refering to any earlier analysis about the matter. This means that
the same is treated to be afresh initiation of proceeding. Initiation of
proceeding afresh starts from issuance of a show cause notice or a
charge-sheet. Any process of the earlier proceeding which stood quashed,
cannot be taken into consideration while initiating a de-novo process.
9. In this case admittedly, there was no de-novo proceeding. Only when the
contempt application was filed, the respondents came up with a reasoned
order without issuing any fresh show cause notice or giving fresh
opportunity of hearing the petitioner. This process which the respondents
have adhered to, is in direct contravention of the direction passed by this
Hon'ble Court in W.P. (S). No. 5075 of 2010. A fresh notice or charge-
sheet should have been issued to the petitioner and response should have
been considered and after giving proper opportunity of hearing, decision
should have been taken.
10. Even a termination order of a contractual employee should be passed
only after following basic principles of natural justice i.e., either by
initiating the proceeding or by giving a notice to show cause.
11. If the termination order is stigmatic in nature, without affording an
opportunity to the petitioner, his services cannot be dispensed with. Thus,
in this case since no de-novo proceeding was initiated by the respondent,
order dated 04.07.2016, is set aside.
12.Respondents are directed to initiate a fresh proceeding. Petitioner is
directed to be reinstated. If the respondent wants to proceed against the
petitioner, they should initiate fresh proceeding i.e., by issuance of show
cause notice or initiate an enquiry and proceed thereafter. Without
following this procedure, the petitioner cannot be removed from his
service.
13.Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Aditi
