Patna High Court
Amit Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 29 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5537 of 2020
======================================================
Amit Kumar Son of Sri Pravin Prasad Resident of Shyam Nagar, Police
Station- Jehanabad, District- Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
2. Bihar Prashasnik Sudhar Mission Society General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Mission Director Bihar Prashasnik Sudhar Mission Society, General
Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Additional Mission Director Bihar Prashasnik Sudhar Mission Society,
General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The District Magistrate Jehanabad.
6. The Additional District Magistrate Jehanabad.
7. The Sub- Divisional Officer Jehanabad.
8. The Nodal Officer RTPS (Right to Public Service) Jehanabad.
9. The Officer in Charge District Confidential Branch, Jehanabad.
10. The Circle Officer Jehanabad Anchal, Jehanabad.
11. The Block Development Officer Jehanabad Block, Jehanabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar @ Alok Kr Shahi, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Md. Nadim Seraj, GP 5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-03-2022
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the
following relief/reliefs:
(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing Order dated 23.09.2019 in
which the petitioner has been terminated/removed
Patna High Court CWJC No.5537 of 2020 dt.29-03-2022
from service as Executive Assistant at Jehanabad
Circle, Jehanabad.
(ii) For any other consequential
relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is entitle by this
Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
3. Petitioner was appointed on contract basis to the post of
Executive Assistant on 19.10.2013. State Government has evolved
policy decision on 26.02.2019 (Annexure-2) to extend the tenure
of such of those contract appointees till attaining 60 years with
rider which reads as under:
1. fcgkj iz"kklfud lq/kkj fe"ku lkslkbVh ds v/khu l`ftr
lafonkRed in ij fu;ksftr vkbZ0Vh0 izca/kd] vkbZ0Vh0 lgk;d
rFkk dk;Zikyd lgk;d dh fu;kstu vof/k ds laca/k esa %&
i. fcgkj iz"kklfud lq/kkj fe"ku lkslkbVh varxZr lafonk ij
fu;ksftr ,oa dk;Zjr vkbZ0Vh0 izca/kd] vkbZ0Vh0 lgk;d
rFkk dk;Zikyd lgk;d dk fu;kstu iwjh rjg vLFkk;h gS
rFkk ;kstuk vof/k lekfIr vFkok 60 o'kZ dh vk;q] tks
igys ykxw gks] rd ds fy, gSA Qyr% lafonk dfeZ;ksa dk
izR;sd o'kZ lafonk vof/k foLrkj fd;s tkus dh vko";drk
ugha gksxhA
ii. vLoLFkrk ;k vuq"kklfud vk/kkj ij vFkok lsok
vlarks'ktud gksus ds dkj.k ;kstuk vof/k vFkok 60 o'kZ
dh vk;q tks igys ykxw gks ds iwoZ Hkh fu;qfDr izkf/kdkj }
kjk lsok lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA
iii. lafonk fu;kstu dh vU; "krZs fu;kstu ds le; fuxZr
fu;kstu [email protected],djkjukek esa vafdr ;Fkkor jgsaxhA
4. Petitioner's services have been dispensed/terminated on
23.09.2019. The respondents have issued show cause notice after
Patna High Court CWJC No.5537 of 2020 dt.29-03-2022
show cause notice, petitioner had submitted reply and thereafter
respondents proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner
on 23.09.2019. Thus, the petitioner has presented this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
termination is based on serious allegations levelled against the
petitioner that petitioner was extracting money from the agents. In
that regard, there is a complaint dated 27.07.2019 stated to have
been submitted by one Mr. Rajiv Kumar.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in
identical circumstances with reference to complaint made by Mr.
Rajiv Kumar, an application was filed under R.T.I. for which there
was a reply from the respondents to the extent that there was no
such complaint, therefore, in the absence of complaint or initiation
of enquiry, termination of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. It
is also submitted that even termination against a temporary
employee is based on allegations, in such circumstance domestic
enquiry is warranted for the reasons that it would be stigmatic
order and future employment of such person would be affected.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents resisted
the aforesaid contention and submitted that termination is based
on the complaint submitted by Mr Rajiv Kumar dated 27.07.2019
Patna High Court CWJC No.5537 of 2020 dt.29-03-2022
read with the Clause II of the communication dated 26.02.2019
(Annexure 2). Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned
action.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed on
contract basis on 19.10.2013 and petitioner is entitle to continue in
service till he attains 60 years in terms of Annexure - 2 dated
26.02.2019 subject to fulfilling the conditions stipulated
thereunder.
10. Perusal of the order of termination dated 23.09.2019, it
is crystal clear that petitioner has not been provided an
opportunity of hearing like examining and cross examination of
Mr. Rajiv Kumar who is the complainant in the present matter. He
has not been cited as witness in the enquiry. Moreover, charge
memo has not been issued in support of the alleged allegations so
as to examine the relevant witnesses. The entire case is with
reference to alleged complaint given by Mr. Rajiv Kumar against
the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
such complaint is not existing as is evident from the document
made available in identical matters by the respondents. In the light
of these facts and circumstances and the fact that the petitioner's
services have been terminated on the basis of the allegations and it
Patna High Court CWJC No.5537 of 2020 dt.29-03-2022
attaches stigma, therefore, domestic enquiry is warranted
irrespective of whether temporary or permanent employee. Hence
the petitioner has made out a case.
11. Accordingly, order dated 23.09.2019 stands set aside.
12. Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement. The concerned
respondents are hereby directed to initiate and complete the
enquiry proceedings if it is warranted within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of this order. If the enquiry is not
initiated, in that event, the petitioner is entitled to monetary
benefits from the date of termination till reinstatement. If enquiry
is initiated then the intervening period would be regulated in
accordance with the relevant provisions of law.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
GAURAV S./-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 30.03.2022
Transmission Date
