Procedural fairness requires providing a reasonable opportunity for defense before terminating employment, as mandated by principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

S. Talapatra, J. - Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. assisted by Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner was engaged as the Technical Assistant (JE) for implementing various projects relating to MGNREGA works. As stated by the petitioner, on 21.11.2018, he abruptly received a notice [Annexure-3 to the writ petition] whereby he has been terminated from his contractual job as Technical Assistant under the scheme of MGNREGA. It has been stated in the said notice that the petitioner had been reporting to his project irregularly, not attending the Office timely and also remaining absent from the Office and the prescheduled meetings. The petitioner was responsible for supervising all the schemes being implemented by the village committees, but his performance was found very dissatisfactory for which the progress of IHHLs under SBM(G) & MGNREGA and housing schemes under PMAY(G) have been adversely affected.

3. Serious allegations those have been made are that as a result of his dereliction in duty, construction of PMAY(G) houses of 2016-17 are not yet completed, even after lapse of two years, though it is one of the Flagship Programme of Hon'ble Prime Minister & State Government.

Further, it has been alleged that for his dereliction of duty, Open Defecation Free (ODF) another Flagship Programme of the Central Government, has also been adversely affected. It has been also alleged that for his willful negligence, gross carelessness and lack of attention or negligence to his duties, the respondents suffered serious detriment.

4. The petitioner having received the said notice had filed a representation on 17.02.2020 alleging the violation of principles of natural justice as he was not given any opportunity to defend himself. The said representation dated 17.02.2020 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition] has not been responded to by the respondents. Finding no other alternative, the petitioner had approached this court urging directions on the respondents to set aside the said notice of termination dated 22.11.2018 and to reinstate the petitioner in the position of Technical Assistant (JE).

5. Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that under the similar circumstances, this court in Sri Umesh Kalai v. State of Tripura and Others [judgment dated 11.02.2020 delivered in WP(C) No. 22 of 2019] has observed that when an order of this nature which results into adverse civil consequences and also stigmatizes the petitioner is passed, a bare minimum opportunity of hearing ought to be granted. Without a show cause notice, without pointing out the nature of so called negligence and defiance of the orders of the authority, the competent authority has unilaterally concluded that the petitioner's service on such grounds was required to be terminated. When the petitioner had continued, although on contractual basis for about 10 years, for which Umesh Kalai was remunerated regularly from the government exchequer, before terminating his engagement, that too on the ground of negligence and misconduct was essential opportunity of hearing.

Having observed thus, the order of termination was set aside directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner. However, no back wage was directed to be paid.

6. Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. assisted by Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has produced the photo copies of the materials which were relied on for passing the impugned order of termination. Materials are catalogues of the projects, where the petitioner failed to supervise for co