ORDER :

1. Matter comes up on misc. application No.1/2023 filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for deciding the present writ petition in view of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18855/2015 (Onkar Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) decided on 04.05.2023.

2. Learned counsel Mr. Ajatshatru Mina, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner has felt aggrieved against the notice dated 29.07.2013, the order dated 01.12.2015 terminating services of the petitioner and the order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the Secretary & Commissioner (Employment Guarantee Scheme), Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, rejecting appeal of the petitioner.

3. Learned Govt. Counsel Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, appearing for the respondents, submitted that some time is required to collect the relevant papers in respect of the enquiry conducted against the petitioner, however, counsel is aware of the fact that the Coordinate Bench has decided the similar controversy in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18855/2015 and he also appeared on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Technical Assistant under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme on 05.06.2008 and he continued till passing of the impugned order dated 01.12.2015.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of some audit being conducted in respect of different work undertaken in Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and on the basis of objection by audit party, initial notice/order dated 29.07.2013 was issued, wherein three persons including the petitioner were found to be guilty and responsible for causing loss to the Government on account of irregular and forged payment being made to different persons.

6. Learned counsel submitted that in the said order Onkar Meena Senior Technical Assistant (EGS), Ashok Kumar Soni (JTA) including the petitioner working as Junior Technical Assistant, were directed to deposit the amount of Rs.18,66,329/-, Rs.2,48,217/- & Rs.16,18,112/- respectively.

7. Learned counsel submitted that after this order was issued, the respondents did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted and straightway order dated 01.12.2015 came to be passed.

8. Learned counsel submitted that the other co-delinquent Onkar Meena and the present petitioner were terminated from service by the respondents by invoking Clause 6(i), (iii) and 7 (iv) of the Contract Agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondents.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 7 of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and the appeal also came to be dismissed.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the agreement, which was executed between the petitioner and the respondents, provided in Clause 6 that if any misconduct was proved against the first party-employee after an enquiry by the employer-respondent, than services can be terminated of such an employee.

11. Learned counsel further submitted that as per Clause 7 of the agreement, service of an employee can also be terminated on notice of one month on either side or by depositing/paying one month’s package/contract amount in lieu of notice.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 01.12.2015, has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and further the same is in violation of terms & conditions of the agreement, which has been entered into between the parties.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in respect of the other co-delinquent i.e. Onkar Meena, has also considered the issue in detail and set aside the termination order, as the same being passed in contravention of Cl