Patna High Court
Amarjeet Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 7 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 9531 of 2023
======================================================
Amarjeet Kumar Son of Sri Rampramod Mahto Resident of Village- Goha,
P.S.- Hasanpur, District- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Home
Department/Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Directorate of Panchayat, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Secretary General Administration, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Deputy Secretary General Administration, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi.
6. The D.D.C., Sitamarhi.
7. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi Sadar.
8. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sitamarhi.
9. The Block Development Officer, Parihar, Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Braj Bhushan Poddar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Kumar Alok ( Sc 7 )
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-05-2025
This petition has been preferred by the petitioner
challenging the order dated 06.06.2022 passed by the District
Panchayat Raj Officer, Sitamarhi whereby the contractual service
of the petitioner has been terminated. Further challenge is to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9531 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
2/5
order dated 13.05.2023 passed by the Collector, Sitamarhi in
Service Appeal No 27 of 2022 whereby the Collector, Sitamarhi
dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
2 Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was
selected as Technical Assistant on contractual basis and vide
Memo No 672 dated 27.06.2019 (Annexure 3), he was posted in
Parihar Block, Sitamarhi. Subsequently, he was also given the
charge of Naranga Uttari Panchayat in Parihar Block. Meanwhile,
on the basis of report made by one Tanya Kumari, Parihar PS Case
No 91 of 2021 for the offence under Sections 363, 366 of Indian
Penal Code has been registered against the petitioner. The
petitioner was arrested on 14.07.2021 and sent to the jail.
Subsequently, on grant of regular bail by this Court, he was
released from jail on 22.02.2022. Thereafter, on 23.02.2022, the
petitioner made an application wherein he prayed for his rejoining
on the post. However, vide order dated 06.06.2022, his services
have been terminated on the ground that the application submitted
by him was not found satisfactory. Against the said order, the
appeal filed by the petitioner before the Collector, Sitamarhi has
also been rejected.
3 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
without giving him any opportunity of hearing, the impugned
Patna High Court CWJC No.9531 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
3/5
order has been passed by the respondents. The explanation
submitted by the petitioner was also not considered by the
authorities while passing the order. Lastly, he submits that as of
now, the trial Court, vide its judgment dated 17.07.2023, acquitted
the petitioner from all the charges levelled against him. Therefore,
on these grounds, both the orders impugned are liable to be set
aside.
4 Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the
argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and
submits that explanation provided by the petitioner was not found
satisfactory. Therefore, his services have been rightly terminated.
5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused
the documents annexed with the writ petition as well as the
counter affidavit.
6 Undisputedly, the petitioner was appointed on
contractual basis. It is also not in dispute that on the basis of
registration of Parihar PS Case No 91 of 2021, he was in jail from
14.07.2021
to 22.02.2022. Perusal of Clause 12 of Sankalp of
Panchayati Raj Vibhag dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure 1) clearly
shows that Zila Panchayati Raj Padhadhikari is empowered to
terminate the services of the employee. Clause 12 of the said
Sankalp further clarifies that before passing the order of
Patna High Court CWJC No.9531 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
termination, opportunity of hearing is necessary. However, in the
case of the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was given to the
petitioner before terminating his services. When the petitioner
made the application permitting him to join his duties then only
the show cause (Annexure 8) was issued. Perusal of the show
cause (Annexure 8) further shows that in the show cause, it is not
mentioned that whatever action is sought to be taken by the
authority. The order impugned (Annexure 10 dated 06.06.2022)
further shows that while passing the said order, the explanation
submitted by the petitioner has not been considered by the
authority. Thus, in the matter of the petitioner of this case, there is
clear cut violation of principles of natural justice as no proper
opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Therefore, on
this ground alone, the order impugned (Annexure 10 dated
06.06.2022) and the appellate order dated 08.12.2022 (Annexure
11) are liable to be set aside.
7 Accordingly, both the orders dated 06.06.2022
(Annexure 10) and 08.12.2022 (Annexure 11) are quashed and set
aside.
8 The respondents are directed to reinstate the services
of the petitioner forthwith.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9531 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
9 However, the respondents will be at liberty to take
fresh action against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so
advised.
(Arvind Singh Chandel, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09.05.2025
Transmission Date NA
