RAJIB LOCHAN BISWAL Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was engaged as a Junior Engineer on 16/5/2011 for a period of one year which came to be renewed from time to time. The last such agreement of renewal was made on 1/5/2014. While working as such, an FIR was lodged against him alleging possession of disproportionate assets vide Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No. 39/2013 under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act 1988 and Sec. 34 of the IPC. The petitioner was called upon to submit show cause vide letter dtd. 21/9/2013 to which, he submitted his reply on 30/10/2013 denying the allegations. Originally the petitioner was engaged under the Water Resources Department but his services were placed under the ST/SC Department vide order dtd. 16/5/2011. By order dtd. 4/11/2013, the petitioner was reverted to the office of the EIC, Water Resources Department, Odisha. By order dtd. 13/11/2013, the petitioner was posted under the control of Chief Engineer, Lower Indra and Lower Suktel Irrigation Project, Nuapada in which he joined on 4/11/2013. Subsequently, the said order was modified and the petitioner was reposted under the control of Chief Engineer, Lower Indra Circle, Khariar in which he joined on 15/11/2013. While the matter should thus, the Government vide order dtd. 23/4/2014 directed the EIC, Water Resources Department, Odisha to terminate the services of the petitioner in terms of the conditions of contractual service as indicated in the agreement at Clause-9. The said order is enclosed to the writ petition as Annexure-7. Pursuant to such order, the opposite party No. 2 issued an order on 1/5/2014 terminating the services of the petitioner which is enclosed as Annexure-8. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the erstwhile Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1457(C) of 2014, which has since been transferred to this Court and registered as the instant writ application. The petitioner claims the following relief:

(2.) Counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties refuting the averments of the writ application. It is basically contended that the petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity which is evident from his involvement in the criminal case. Further, the petitioner being engaged as a contractual Junior Engineer, the services are governed under the clauses of the agreement executed by him and the Government. Since he was arrested by the Vigilance Department for possession of disproportionate assets to his known sources of income, the Government in Department of Water Resources decided to terminate his services as he had violated Para 9 of the agreement.

(3.) The petitioner filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit stating that Clause-9 of the agreement cannot be invoked in his case because mere involvement in the criminal case cannot amount to misconduct more so as charge sheet had not been filed in the said case.