IMPORTANT POINT
Contractual employees must be afforded principles of natural justice, including access to enquiry reports, before termination.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department appearing for all the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the Office Order dated 01.10.2021 (Annexure-4), terminating the contract engagement of the petitioner with immediate effect.

[2.] Be it stated herein that the petitioner was engaged as Gram Rojgar Shahyak (GRS) on contract basis vide engagement Order dated 01.07.2009 up to 22.02.2010 (Annexure-1). The engagement of the petitioner continued from time to time until he was terminated by the aforesaid impugned Office Order dated 01.10.2021.

[3.] The case projected by the petitioner is that the impugned order is punitive in nature and that adequate opportunity was not afforded to him prior to passing the same since the very basis of the issuing show-cause notice is the enquiry report submitted by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Hojai which had not been served to him. Therefore, he was not in a position to make an effective reply to the show-cause notice. According to the petitioner, he was not the sole authority responsible for the preparation of the Muster Roll and in fact, as per the guidelines in this regard, the Panchayat representatives played a vital role in execution of the MGNREGA schemes and that the village Monitoring Committee constituted by the local people are responsible to monitor the entire schemes and therefore, the allegation made against the petitioner and his termination on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the CEO is bad in law and should be set aside.

[4.] Mr. S K Talukdar, learned counsel submits that besides non-furnishing of the enquiry report made by the CEO, a bare perusal of the impugned order of termination clearly goes to show that the show-cause reply submitted by the petitioner had not at all being considered by the authority concerned before arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner should be terminated on the basis of the findings made against him. He submits that the petitioner may no doubt be a contract employee but at the same time, he cannot be terminated in the manner it was done since the impugned termination order is punitive in nature and shows gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He submits that similar other employees under the same establishment have also approached this Court through their respective writ petitions and this Court had interfered with the orders of termination, upon finding that the same was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. One such case cited by the learned counsel is the Order dated 18.09.2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 6680/2022 (Sailendra Bora vs. State of Assam & 2 Ors.). He, therefore, submits that the impugned order of termination should be set aside and the petitioner be directed to be reinstated back into service.

[5.] Mr. S Dutta, learned counsel for the P&RD Department submits that the petitioner was duly given the opportunity to make an explanation on the discrepancies found in view of the fact that he had accompanied the CEO concerned himself wherein, his statements had been recorded. In this connection, he draws the attention of this Court to Annexure-III of the affidavit-in-opposition and submits that the petitioner himself admitted that the thumb impression of the Job Card holders were taken by himself in respect of the Muster Roll Nos. 4349 & 4351, which was also signed by him. Therefore, the petitioner cannot say that the principles of natural justice have been violated particularly when the show-cause notice has clearly revealed the nature of the allegation while giving him an opportunity to make a reply to the same.

[6.] The learned counsel has further drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph Nos. 8, 9, 11 & 14 of the counter affidavit, while submitting that the statements made therein has not been controverted by the petitioner by filing a rejoinder affidavit and the