SRI NIKUNJA BIHARI BHUKTA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is against the order of disengagement dated 4.8.2012 passed by the opposite party no.3-Collector-cum-D.P.C., D.R.D.A., Malkangiri, so far as it relates to the petitioner, by which, the petitioner has been disengaged from service from the post of Gram Rojagar Sevak for Govindapalli Gram Panchayat under Khairput Block in the district of Malkangiri.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued this case while assailing the order of disengagement on the ground that the order of disengagement has been passed without issuing any show cause notice and as such, the same is in violation to the principle of natural justice. She further submits that even accepting the show cause notice, which has been annexed in the counter affidavit, the same is also not said to be legal in view of the fact that the performance of the petitioner has been assessed for the financial year 2011-12 and 2012-13, in which, the petitioner has been found to be bad performer. But according to her, petitioner has been engaged as Gram Rojagar Sevak on 15.12.2011 and disengaged from service on 4.8.2012. She further contends that the show cause notice was issued on 19.5.2012 meaning thereby the performance of the petitioner as on 13.5.2012 in the financial year 2012-13 has been assessed, in which, his performance has been found to be zero. She further contends that the show cause notice has been issued is without any application of mind for the reason that since the petitioner has been engaged in service and rendered his service in the financial year 2011-12 for a period of about 3 1/2 months approximately, in which, he has achieved Rs.2.26 lakh against committed target of Rs.8.94 lakh, which is 23% of expenditure, but the authorities has assessed the entire financial year which begins from 1st April, 2011 to 31st March, 2012. She further submits that even for the time period of 2012-13, the financial year since beings from 1st April, 2012 and his performance can at best be said to be assessed till 13.5.2012, which is about less than 1 1/2 months and as such, before allowing the petitioner to use his potentiality when it is a maximum length, the show cause notice has been issued and he has disengaged from service. On the strength of this averment, submission has been made that the show cause notice has been issued without any application of mind and as such, the order of disengagement is also not sustainable in the eye of law.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the District Rural Development Agency as also the Collector has vehemently opposed the submission made on behalf of the petitioner and it has been submitted that the show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, but he has not responded to it. Hence, it is incorrect to say that the principle of natural justice has not been followed. He further submits that the show cause notice has been issued taking into consideration the bad performance of the petitioner in achieving the target as has been fixed by the authority in order to achieve the target fixed.