IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.R. Sarangi, J.
Swetapadma Dash – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 19489 of 2012
Decided On : 12-04-2019
GPTA - Disengagement of Gram Panchayat Technical Assistant - Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, Clauses 2, 9, 10 - The court upheld the disengagement of the petitioner as GPTA due to serious irregularities committed in violation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and related clauses.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Diploma Holder Engineer, was disengaged as Gram Panchayat Technical Assistant (GPTA) due to serious irregularities in the execution of a work under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the disengagement of the petitioner as GPTA, as it found that the petitioner failed to perform her duties properly and committed serious irregularities, leading to wasteful expenditure of government money.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's disengagement as GPTA, the alleged misappropriation of government money, and the rejection of the petitioner's representation for re-engagement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the findings of serious irregularities committed by the petitioner, as well as the lack of proper supervision and discharge of legitimate assignments, leading to the rejection of the petitioner's representation for re-engagement.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ application, upholding the disengagement of the petitioner as GPTA and the rejection of the representation for re-engagement.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. Sarangi, J.
1. The petitioner, by means of this writ application, seeks to quash order dated 12.07.2011 in Annexure-4, by which the petitioner has been disengaged as Gram Panchayat Technical Assistant (GPTA), and also the order dated 31.07.2012 passed by the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) rejecting the representation of the petitioner, and further seeks for direction to re-engage her in the post of GPTA.
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is a Diploma Holder Engineer. - On successful completion of Diploma in Civil Engineering, she was empanelled for appointment as a Junior Engineer under the State. The panel is maintained and prepared by the committee of Chief Engineers and Engineer-in-Chief (Civil), Odisha, Bhubaneswar. From the said panel, the names of Junior Engineers are sponsored to different departments of the Government, Government Undertakings and other authorities for appointment as per their requisition. The petitioner's name was sponsored to Panchayati Raj Department for appointment. Accordingly, she was appointed as Junior Engineer under National Food For Work Programme (NFFWP) Scheme, initially for a period of one year, on contractual basis with a remuneration of Rs. 5000/- per month, pursuant to order dated 18.08.2005 of the Project Director, DRDA., Mayurbhanj in Annexure-I, and was posted as GPAT under Shamakhunta Block, in which post she joined on 19.08.2005 on execution of the annual agreement.
2.1. The petitioner was entrusted with execution of a work under MGNREGS (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme) of assigned Gram Panchayat. But it was noticed, while discharging her duties, that she has committed serious irregularities. An enquiry was conducted by the Project Director, DRDA and it was found that the petitioner has committed gross negligence in performing her duty and acted in violation of the principles of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and also clauses-2, 9 and 10 of the terms and conditions of the annual agreement. Consequentially, she was disengaged from service vide order dated 12.07.2011 in Annexure-4. Against such disengagement order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 19264 of 2011 and after due adjudication this Court disposed of the writ application by order dated 05.03.2011 with the direction that opposite party No. 3 shall give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and if the Project Director was satisfied that the petitioner has no role to play in the irregularity that has been committed, then the case of the petitioner for re-engagement shall be considered. Pursuant to such direction, the Project Director, DRDA, affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed order impugned in Annexure-6 dated 31.07.2012 rejecting claim of the petitioner for re-engagement. Hence this application.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was discharging her duties assigned to her with all sincerity, but on the allegation of some irregularities she has been disengaged. It is further contended that a show notice was issued against the petitioner on the allegation of misappropriate of government money to the tune of Rs. 32,650/-, as she had not applied her mind into the selection of a suitable land for sanction of a farm pond in the name of the beneficiary and thereby, there was wrong payment of government money of Rs. 32,650/- without execution of any work, which amounts to misappropriation, and disengagement of the petitioner by the impugned order under Annexure-4 on the basis of such allegation is quiet harsh. It is further contended that challenging the disengagement of contractual engagement of the petitioner under order dated 12.07.2011 in Annexure-4, she approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 19264 of 2011, which was disposed of by order dated 05.03.2012 with a direction to the Project Director, DRDA to cons
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.