Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1304
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Aniruddha Bose, B.B.Mangalmurti, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Rural Development Department and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Md. Masi Arshad, son of Md. Kalim Akhtar – Respondent
L.P.A. No.291 of 2018
Decided On : 27-11-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Anup Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
The main legal point established is the requirement to provide an opportunity of hearing before termination, even in a contractual engagement.
Headnote:
Opportunity of Hearing - Termination from Contractual Post - The court modified the order of the lower court, directing the state to give the respondent an opportunity of hearing. The respondent's engagement was kept in abeyance pending a speaking order from the authority concerned.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner was terminated from the contractual post of Junior Engineer under the MGNREGA scheme based on allegations of accepting money from a beneficiary, without being given an opportunity of hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent should have been given an opportunity of hearing before termination, and directed the state to provide the materials forming the basis of inquiry and show cause notice to the respondent. The respondent's engagement was kept in abeyance pending a speaking order from the authority concerned.
Issues: The main issue was the lack of opportunity of hearing provided to the respondent before termination from the contractual post.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity of hearing before termination, especially in a contractual engagement, and directed the state to give the respondent a fair chance to respond to the allegations.
Final Decision: The court modified the order of the lower court, directing the state to give the respondent an opportunity of hearing and to keep the respondent's engagement in abeyance pending a speaking order from the authority concerned.
1. On consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties, we are taking up this appeal at this stage only for hearing.
2. The appeal is directed against a judgment delivered by the learned First Court quashing the writ petitioner’s termination order dated 16th November, 2016 from the contractual post of Junior Engineer under the MGNREGA scheme. The initial engagement of the writ petitioner was for a year.
3. Allegation against the writ petitioner was that he had illegally accepted money from one of the beneficiaries of the said scheme to the tune of Rs.5000/-. An inquiry was conducted and it is the State’s case that during inquiry the said money was returned to the beneficiary concerned. On conclusion of inquiry, show cause notice was issued to which the writ petitioner replied denying the charges. But complain of the writ petitioner before the learned First Court as well as before us is that he was never given any chance to cross examine the witnesses and no opportunity of hearing also was given to him. The termination order was effected solely on the basis of his reply to the show cause notice, in which he denied the charges. The State’s stand however is that before the inquiring authority, the writ petitioner had accepted that he had taken the money which was later on refunded. This fact had been recorded in writing by the complainant.
4. On going through the materials on record, in our opinion, an opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the respondent-writ petitioner. At the same time, having regard to the factual materials available, we are not inclined to direct reinstatement of his service straightaway. The post in question was contractual.
5. We accordingly modify the order of the learned First Court directing the State-appellant to give an opportunity of hearing to the respondent- writ petitioner. The materials forming the basis of inquiry and issue of show cause notice shall be made available to him, if not already supplied. In the interim period, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the materials available, we direct keeping his engagement in abeyance.
6. Let speaking order be passed by the authority concerned within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of server/certified copy of the order. If the aforesaid direction is not complied with within the timeframe prescribed by us, the order of Writ Court shall revive and become operational.
7. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.
8. The connected interlocutory application also stands disposed of in the above terms.
