[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Munna Kumar vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 2 December, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17233 of 2012
======================================================
Munna Kumar Son of Late Khusnandan Singh Resident of Village- Bishunpur
Chak Pahar, P.O.- Madhopur Hajari, P.S.- Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
3. The Under Secretary, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
4. The Deputy Agriculture Director (Administration), Agriculture Directorate,
Bihar, Patna
5. The Agriculture Production Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
6. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur
7. The District Agriculture Officer, Muzaffarpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rama Kant Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. K.P. Gupta, Advocate
Mr. SC-16
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date :02-12-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application
praying for quashing the Office Order no.182 dated 16.7.2012
issued under the signature of the District Agriculture Officer,
Muzaffarpur cancelling the appointment of the petitioner.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on the
respondents having come out with an advertisement in the year
2010, the petitioner applied and by order dated 30.4.2010 was
Patna High Court CWJC No.17233 of 2012 dt.02-12-2025
appointed as a Subject Matter Specialist. He started working to
the satisfaction of all concerned. The petitioner was surprised to
receive Office Order no.182 dated 16.7.2012 issued by the
District Agriculture Officer, Muzaffarpur cancelling the
appointment of the petitioner.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the order impugned cancelling the petitioner's appointment
is not sustainable for violation of principle of natural justice as
neither any notice nor any show cause was issued to the
petitioner prior to passing of the said order.
5. The application is opposed by learned counsel for the
respondents. Referring to the contents of the counter affidavit, it
is submitted that in light of a complaint by one Rajesh Kumar, a
member of the Panchayat Samiti, in the enquiry conducted, it
transpired that the petitioner and others had indulged in
irregularities. Consequent to the submission of the enquiry
report, on the direction of the Director Agriculture, Bihar to the
District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, the petitioner was terminated
on 16.7.2012. It is submitted that the order having been passed
in accordance with Clause 11 of the Guidelines of the
Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, there is no
illegality in the same and as such, the writ application be
Patna High Court CWJC No.17233 of 2012 dt.02-12-2025
dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record.
7. The relevant facts in brief are that pursuant to the
respondents having come out with an advertisement in the year
2010, the petitioner applied and was appointed on the post of
Subject Matter Specialist on 30.4.2010. A perusal of the order of
appointment bearing order no.195 dated 30.4.2010 (Annexure-
3) would show that the same clearly provides that the
appointment was purely temporary, it was for a period of two
years and the petitioner would be entitled for honorarium of
Rs.5,000/- per month and operational expenses of Rs.3,500/ per
month. In future, he would not be claiming any regular
appointment nor making any other claim. The appointment
would come to an end on the scheme ending or the respondents
finding that the work being carried out by the petitioner is
unsatisfactory. The other clauses mentioned in the order of
appointment are also very clear.
8. A perusal of the order of appointment clearly shows
that the appointment was purely on temporary basis for a period
of two years on payment of honorarium. On perusal of the order
impugned as also the contents of the counter affidavit, it
Patna High Court CWJC No.17233 of 2012 dt.02-12-2025
transpires that on a complaint having been filed by one Rajesh
Kumar, a member of the Panchayat Samiti of village Motipur, a
Committee was constituted which enquired into the matter and
submitted its report on 18.1.2012. In the report submitted, it
transpired that the officials including the District Agriculture
Officer, Muzaffarpur, the Block Agriculture Officer, Motipur as
also others had indulged in irregularities. The enquiry report
was duly examined and the Director Agriculture, Bihar asked
the District Magistrate to take action in the matter.
9. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he was directed
to be terminated with immediate effect in view of the grave
charges of embezzlement of public money and further direction
was given to lodge an FIR against him.
10. It is on the approval of the District Magistrate,
Muzaffarpur that the District Agriculture Officer, Muzaffarpur
came out with an Office Order no.182 dated 16.7.2012
cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. The respondents in
coming out with the order took into consideration the
Guidelines issued by the Agriculture Department, Government
of Bihar, brought on record as Annexure D to the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.2 to 5.
11. In view of the facts and circumstances stated herein
Patna High Court CWJC No.17233 of 2012 dt.02-12-2025
above, the Court finds no illegality in the order cancelling the
appointment of the petitioner and no merit in the instant
application.
12. The application is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 30.10.2025
Uploading Date 02.12.2025
Transmission Date N/A
