GANESHWAR HANSDA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as Gram Panchayat Technical Assistant (GPTA), has filed this application seeking to quash the office order dated 16.04.2013, which was passed by order of the Collector-cum-DPC, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Sundargarh, communicated by the Project Director, District Rural Development Authority (DRDA), Sundargarh in disengaging him from the post.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner having been duly selected was engaged as contractual GPTA under the MGNREGS in the district of Sundargarh vide office order dated 02.05.2006 of the Project Director, DRDA. The engagement being contractual for a period of one year, an agreement was executed annually as per the guidelines and as such, after the joining of the petitioner as GPTA, in each year, agreement was executed. The last agreement was executed on 01.04.2010 in Annexure- 2, pursuant to which he continued. For the year 2010-11, some project work under Integrated Action Plan (IAP) were finalized to be executed in Nuagaon as per the approved project list communicated by the Project Director, DRDA vide letter dated 17.02.2011 to the Block Development Officer. Pursuant to such communication of the Project Director, DRDA, the BDO, Nuagaon on 23.02.2011 passed order directing the petitioner to prepare the plan and estimate of the project for technical sanction and administrative approval by the competent authority in respect of the work/project indicated therein. Out of the same, serial no.1 relates to improvement of road from "Chitapedi to Jamtola" for Rs.20 lakhs. The plan and estimate was countersigned by the Assistant Engineer of the Block and the same was submitted to the DRDA by the BDO, Nuagaon. In the review meeting of the DRDA, Sundargarh held in presence of the BDO and Asst. Engineer, it was decided to go ahead with the work without waiting for technical sanction order/administrative approval, and the same was executed departmentally. According to such decision, the improvement of road from "Chitapedi to Jamtola" near about 2.744 kms has been done and rest part of the road is yet to be completed. The ongoing work was inspected by the higher authority from time to time and was measured and check-measured by the Asst. Engineer being countersigned by the BDO and Chairperson of the Block showing satisfaction about the execution of the work. Accordingly, running bills were also submitted. But, on the basis of the allegation of the local MLA and Chairperson of the Block with regard to irregularity committed in executing the work, the Collector, Sundargarh vide letter dated 06.02.2013 found the petitioner guilty and called upon him to show cause for disengagement from contractual service, without any inquiry and without any opportunity of hearing. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his reply on 22.02.2013, but without considering the same in proper perspective, the order impugned dated 16.04.2013 was passed disengaging the petitioner from contractual service of GPTA under MGNREGS w.e.f. 16.04.2013 afternoon, as he has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement (Points No.3, 11 and 13) executed with the DPC. Hence, this application.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner argued with vehemence and contended that the order impugned in Annexure-7 dated 16.04.2013, having been passed without conducting any inquiry and without giving opportunity of hearing, cannot sustain and is liable to be quashed. It is further contended that when show cause notice was issued, vide Annexure-5 dated 06.02.2013, the opposite parties have already found the petitioner guilty of misappropriation of public money, negligence in duty and misconduct. Having found guilty, calling upon the show cause in compliance of principles of natural justice is an empty formality. Therefore, the consequential order passed on 16.04.2013 disengaging the petitioner from service cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is further contended that while passing the final order on 16.04.2013, reasons for issuance of show cause notice was not there, rather the petitioner has been disengaged on the allegation of gross negligence in government duty, gross misconduct and unsatisfactory performance. Thereby, the order in question cannot sustain in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed.