Tripura High Court
Shri Bimal Sarkar vs The State Of Tripura Represented ... on 13 December, 2022
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A. No.205/2020
Shri Bimal Sarkar, S/O Shri Matilal Sarkar, Resident of Village & P.O.-
Lankamura, P.S. West Agartala, Sub-Division-Agartala, District-West
Tripura.
...... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
1. The State of Tripura represented by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary,
Rural Development Department, Government of Tripura, having his office at
Capital Complex, Gurkhabasti, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. East Agartala, Agartala,
West Tripura.
2. The Chief Engineer, Rural Development Department, Government of
Tripura, having his office at Capital Complex, Gurkhabasti, P.O. Kunjaban,
P.S. East Agartala, Agartala, West Tripura.
3. The District Magistrate & Collector, (District Programme Co-Coordinator-
MGNREGA), West Tripura, having his office at Old Secretariat Complex,
P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, Sub-Division-Agartala, District-West
Tripura.
4. The Block Development Officer (Programme Officer), Hezamara R.D.
Block, having his office at Hezamara, District-West Tripura.
......Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, G.A.,
Mr. Soumyadeep Saha, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Date of hearing and judgment : 13th December, 2022.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. Kawsik Nath, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard
Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents-State.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 13.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.276 of
2015 whereby the learned Single Judge did not find the reasons assigned in
the impugned order of termination dated 29.06.2015 passed by the
respondent No.3, the District Magistrate & Collector, (District Programme
Coordinator-MGNREGA), West Tripura to be treated as stigmatic and
consequently, dismissed the writ petition.
3. In the present writ appeal, appellant-petitioner has prayed for
the following reliefs:
"A. Admit the appeal;
B. Call for the records;
C. After hearing both the parties, set aside the
impugned Judgment and Order (Oral), dated, 13-02-2020,
passed by Ld. Single Judge, in WP(C) No.276/2015;
D. Pass any other order/orders as the Hon'ble High
Court may deem fit and proper."
4. Case of the appellant, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner was
first engaged as Technical Assistant under MGNREGA Scheme vide order
dated 24.06.2011 along with other persons on contractual basis for a period
of two years which may be extended from time to time subject to
satisfactory performance of duties entrusted upon him. Accordingly, the
service of the petitioner was extended from time to time till 2015. When the
petitioner was in such engagement, he was served with a show-cause notice
dated 12.06.2015 issued by the D.M. & Collector, West Tripura directing
him to assign reasons as to why his contractual services under the
MGNREGA scheme should not be terminated for failure to discharge his
duties as per the guidelines of the said scheme. After receipt of the show-
cause notice, petitioner has submitted representation on 22.06.2015
controverting the allegations leveled against him in the said notice. The said
representation was duly considered by the respondent No.3, D.M. &
Collector, West Tripura but ultimately issued the impugned termination
order against the petitioner being found him unsuitable for the said post.
5. Assailing the impugned order of termination, which according
to the petitioner was stigmatic, arbitrary and unreasonable, he preferred a
writ petition being WP(C) No.276 of 2015 which was ultimately dismissed
by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 13.02.2020.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ appeal. Hence,
this case.
6. Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Kawsik Nath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the
show-cause notice was issued on 12.06.2015. It is pre-determined and the
reply to the show-cause notice filed on 22.06.2015 is also not considered by
the respondent No.3 and the termination order dated 29.06.2015 has been
issued and the same is the one without giving any proper reasons and prayed
to set aside the same.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, has drawn the
attention of this Court to the order of engagement on contract basis dated
24.06.2011 at Annexure-P/1 and as per Clause-4 of the said order, the
appointment can be terminated at any time by giving one month's notice or
even without assigning any reasons. Since, the MGNREGA Scheme is a
beneficial scheme, for the purpose of development of the Panchayats several
work are to be performed. The petitioner has miserably failed in performing
his obligated duties and accordingly, a show-cause notice has been issued
and after receiving the reply, termination order has been issued and there is
no error in the entire proceedings and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ
appeal.
8. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view
that the main issue which falls for consideration is whether the show-cause
notice which was issued on 12.06.2015 is pre-determined or was given
without affording/inviting a fair opportunity.
9. The relevant portion of the show-cause notice is extracted
hereinbelow:
"WHEREAS being Technical Assistant under
MGNREGA scheme under Hezamara RD Block, it was the
duty of Sri Bimal Sarkar, contractual Technical Assistant,
under MGNREGA Scheme of the O/o the Block Development
Officer, Hezamara R.D. Block to inspect all the MGNREGA
works on the field under his sector and take due measurement
so as to take out the output of the work for the payment of
wages of MGNREGA beneficiaries through electronic Fund
Transfer Orders (FTOs) based on the output of work but he
failed miserably in that which amounts to violation of the
spirit of MGNREGA Act and MGNREGA Guidelines."
In view of the same, the petitioner-appellant has preferred to
file the reply on 22.06.2015 in which he has given explanation to the show-
cause notice.
10. To the surprise, the order of termination dated 29.06.2015 does
not speak anything with regard to the contentions of the reply and the
manner in which the Clause-4 of the order of engagement on contract dated
24.06.2011 has been adopted by the respondents while passing the
termination order. Further, this Court also feels that in the show-cause notice
the word "decided" clearly indicates that the show-cause notice is only an
empty formality. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to quash the
order of termination dated 29.06.2015 and accordingly, the writ appeal is
allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 13.02.2020
passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.276 of 2015 is also set
aside by giving a liberty to the respondents-State to pass a speaking order in
pursuance of the show-cause notice and the reply, as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within 8(eight) weeks from the date of passing of this
order.
11. With the above observations and directions, the writ appeal is
accordingly disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
Pulak
