[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Ela Chandan Wife Of Santosh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 17 February, 2026
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2026:JHHC:4430
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1334 of 2022
----
Ela Chandan wife of Santosh Kumar, R/o Village Badi Maliya, PO Badi Maliya,
PS & District Khagariya, Bihar, presently residing at Saketan, Shastrinagar,
Ward No.6, PO, P.S. & District - Godda.
... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Jharkhand Sachiwalaya, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.
- Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
2. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and
Cooperative, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at Nepal House,
Doranda, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, & District - Ranchi.
3. The State Agriculture Management and Extension Training Institute
through the Director, SAMETI, having its Office at Krishi Bhawan, Kanke
Road, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. - Kanke & District - Ranchi.
4. The State Nodal Officer (Extension Reforms)/ Director, SAMETI,
Jharkhand, having its Office at Krishi Bhawan, Kanke Road, Ranchi, P.O. &
P.S. - Kanke & District - Ranchi.
5. The State Nodal Officer (S.M.A.E.)-cum-Director Agriculture, Jharkhand,
having its Office at Krishi Bhawan, Kanke Road, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. -
Kanke & District - Ranchi.
6. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda-cum-Chairman, Agriculture Technology
Management Agency (ATMA), Godda, having its Office at District
Collectorate Office, Godda, P.O., P.S. & District Godda.
7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda, having its Office at SDO Office, Godda,
PO PS & District Godda.
8. The Block Development Officer, Godda, having its Office at BDO Office,
Godda, P.O., P.S. & District Godda.
9. The Subdivision-cum-District Agriculture Officer, Godda-cum-Project
Director, Agriculture Technology Management Agency (ATMA), Godda,
having its Office at Agriculture Bhawan, Godda, P.O., P.S. & District
Godda.
10. The Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society-cum-District Cooperative
Officer, Godda having its Office at Godda, PO, PS & District Godda.
11. Manoj Kumar Thakur, S/o Late Krishna Thakur, R/o ATMA Agriculture
Office, Poreyahat, Godda, P.O., P.S. & District Godda.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
Ms. Shristi Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, SC V
Mr. Krishna Prajapati, AC to SC V
----
ORDER
RESERVED ON 20.01.2026 PRONOUNCED ON 17.02.2026
Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs: -
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/
direction(s) in the nature of certiorari quashing and
2026:JHHC:4430
setting aside the office order No.02 dated 15.02.2022
(Annexure-12) issued by the District Agriculture
Officer-cum-Project Director, ATMA, Godda
(Respondent No.9) whereby and whereunder the
employment contract of the Petitioner executed on
07.04.2012 has been arbitrarily terminated in violation
of Article 14 and 311 of the Constitution of India and
the principles of natural justice;
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/
direction(s) in the nature of mandamus directing the
reinstatement of the Petitioner on the post of Block
Technology Manager, Godda with continuity of service
and to give all the consequential reliefs and other
benefits for the period of dismissal to reinstatement;
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/
direction(s) in the nature of mandamus directing the
Respondent Authorities to disburse the salary of the
Petitioner amounting to Rs.2,10,000/- (approximately)
which has been illegally withheld by the Respondents
even though the Petitioner was officially working till
February, 2022;
2. Petitioner was appointed as Block Technology Manager in Godda
District. Vide Office Order No.127 dated 30.03.2012, petitioner was directed to
provide her services for the post of Block Technology Manager, Godda Block,
District Godda. An agreement was executed on 07.04.2012 between the
Project Director, Agricultural Technology Management Agencies, Godda and
the petitioner. The agreement with the petitioner was extended from time to
time. Vide letter No. JSLPS/BMMU-Godda/624/2020-21 dated 17.12.2020
seeds of wheat, mustard and gram were received by Jharkhand State
Livelihood Promotion Society (JSLPS) in the Godda Block for distribution
amongst the farmers. The said distribution programme was stopped by JSLPS
vide letter dated 14.12.2020 and it was directed that remaining seeds and
other materials be returned to the Block Agriculture Officer and Block
Technology Manager. An inspection was conducted on 14.07.2021 by the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda and the Assistant Registrar Cooperative
Society-cum-District Cooperative Officer, Godda at Agriculture Technical
Information Centre, Block Office Godda and allegedly certain discrepancies
2026:JHHC:4430
were found in storage register and distribution register. It was alleged that
4.47 quintals of gram seeds should have been in the custody of the Block
Technology Manager, however, it was informed by the petitioner that the
storage area did not have the seeds of any crop. Vide letter dated 17.07.2021,
the Sub Divisional Officer, Godda submitted his enquiry report to the Deputy
Commissioner, Godda and informed him about the inspection and suggested
action to be taken against the petitioner and other related officers. The Deputy
Commissioner, Godda, vide letter dated 22.07.2021 directed the District
Agriculture Officer, Godda to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and
other related officers. The District Agriculture Officer, Godda vide letter No.555
dated 31.07.2021 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner with respect to
the aforesaid allegations and directed the petitioner to submit her reply within
two days. Petitioner submitted her reply vide letter dated 04.08.2021
contending therein that receiving of 22.47 quintals of seeds was kept in the
stock register, however, due to her engagement in other office related works,
the same could not be maintained in the register. Among other contentions, it
was also a contention of the petitioner that the seeds were distributed
amongst the farmers in equal quantity. The Project Director, ATMA, Godda,
after lapse of more than four months, vide letter No.194 dated 06.12.2021
issued second show cause notice to the petitioner directing her to submit her
reply within three days. The petitioner, vide letter dated 08.12.2021 submitted
her reply stating that her response to the allegations had already been made
in the earlier reply. The Project Director, ATMA, Godda vide letter No.02 dated
03.02.2022 directed the Controlling Officer of the petitioner, being State Nodal
Officer (Extension Reforms)/ Director, Agriculture, Jharkhand, to terminate the
contract of the petitioner after issuing a show cause to her. The District
Agriculture Officer-cum-Project Director, ATMA, Godda vide Office Order
No.02 dated 15.02.2022 has terminated the agreement of the petitioner after
giving her a notice of one month. It was mentioned that the services of the
petitioner would automatically terminate after a period of one month from
15.02.2022. Petitioner was also asked to assure that her complete charge is
handed over to the respondent No.11 and only then her salary will be
disbursed. The respondent No.11 had already given his joining vide letter
dated 02.03.2022. The petitioner on 03.03.2022 submitted a representation to
the Deputy Commissioner, Godda-cum-Chairman, ATMA against termination
of her contract. As petitioner was not paid her salary since June, 2021, she
made a representation to the respondent No.9 on 10.03.2022 for
2026:JHHC:4430
disbursement of her salary. Petitioner claims that though the respondents
have paid salary to the petitioner till September, 2021, however, salary
amounting to Rs.2,10,000/- for the period from October 2021 to February
2022 has been withheld. She claims that the decision to terminate the contract
of the petitioner was taken in the light of the decision of the ATMA Official
Body Meeting held on 23.09.2021.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner
has been arbitrarily terminated by the respondents in violation of Articles 14
and 311(2) of the Constitution of India without following the principles of
natural justice and without complying the requirements of a valid disciplinary
proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the second
show cause notice was issued after a delay of four months, with a
premeditated intention to terminate the services of the petitioner and show
cause notice was merely an eye wash, which is in violation of the requirement
of legitimate requirement of the principles of natural justice. It was further
contended by learned counsel that the petitioner had duly explained the
alleged irregularities as pointed out in the show cause notice stating that the
said amount of gram seeds could not be accounted for earlier as the detail of
their distribution was available with the Krishak Mitra. Learned counsel also
contended that the inspection was conducted during COVID-19 pandemic
when the Government Offices were either closed or were functional in a very
limited capacity. Learned counsel further contended that there is no mention
about the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the consideration
thereof by the respondents while passing the order terminating the services of
the petitioner. Learned counsel also submitted that the order of termination
from service of the petitioner is stigmatic and has been imposed without
following the principles of natural justice and due process of law. Learned
counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation &
Others versus Brijesh Kumar & Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC
2282.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that services of
the petitioner have been terminated in terms of Clause 3 of agreement dated
07.04.2012, which provided that if the service of the second party is not
satisfactory or when there will be no need of her service, the same will be
terminated after giving one month prior notice of her termination. It was
contended by learned counsel that an inspection was made wherein it was
2026:JHHC:4430
found that in distribution register no quantity of gram seed was mentioned in
front of names of farmers and as against 22.47 quintals of gram seeds made
available by JSLPS, only 18 quintals of gram seeds were distributed and rest
4.47 quintals were not in stock of petitioner. This suggests misappropriation.
With these findings a confidential enquiry report was sent by the Sub
Divisional Officer to the Deputy Commissioner, Godda. Learned counsel for
the respondents contended that a meeting of governing body of ATMA was
convened wherein a decision was taken in the light of the enquiry report
submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer wherein petitioner was found indulged
in grave irregularity and her work was found unsatisfactory and accordingly, it
was resolved to send letter to State Nodal Officer (Extension Reforms)-cum-
Director Agriculture, Jharkhand to terminate the contract of the petitioner.
Learned counsel submitted that the services of the petitioner were terminated
giving her one month's notice. Learned counsel contended that the entire
process of termination of the petitioner is valid in the eyes of law and entire
rules and regulations of natural justice have been followed in the said process.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no irregularity or
illegality in termination of service agreement of the petitioner, which call for
any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Block Technology
Manager in Godda District on contractual basis. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Godda in the inspection conducted by him, had found discrepancies in storage
register and distribution register. It was found that out of 22.47 quintals of
gram seeds meant for distribution, only 18 quintals were distributed and rest
4.47 quintals were not in stock. The petitioner, despite having been asked to
show cause, could not give a satisfactory reply to the charges. It is also an
admitted fact that Clause 3 of the agreement dated 07.04.2012 provides that if
the services of the petitioner is not found to be satisfactory or when there will
be no need of her service, the contract of the petitioner will be terminated after
giving one month's prior notice. On the basis of the enquiry report submitted
by the Sub Divisional Officer, finding grave irregularity and finding the works of
the petitioner to be unsatisfactory, it was resolved in the meeting of the
Governing Body of ATMA to terminate the contract of the petitioner.
Accordingly, contract of the petitioner was terminated giving her one month's
notice. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brijesh Kumar (supra)
as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not come to the rescue
2026:JHHC:4430
of the petitioner, inasmuch as although the termination of contract of the
petitioner is on the basis of some charges, which is stigmatic, the petitioner
had been afforded with sufficient opportunity to reply and even she had
submitted her reply too and after finding the reply submitted by the petitioner
to be unsatisfactory and after giving her one month's notice as per the terms
of the agreement, contract of the petitioner has been terminated. Moreover,
the charges against the petitioner are that of embezzlement of 4.47 quintals of
gram seeds for which the petitioner could not explain satisfactorily. I find no
illegality in the office order terminating the employment contract of the
petitioner. Thus, there being no merit, this writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated 17th February, 2026
Kumar/Cp-02
Uploaded on 17.02.2026
