JAVED ALAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar Education Project Council (hereinafter referred to as the "Council").

(2.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.3.2009, Annexure-11, whereunder his service contract with the Council has been directed to be terminated by the Project Director with effect from 3.4.1999 in the light of the contents of the report of the District Magistrate, Saran, District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Coordinator, Saran. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 1.10.2009 passed by the Project Director, Annexure-19, whereunder his request for review of the earlier order dated 4.3.2009, Annexure-11 in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 23.6.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6965 of 2009 has been rejected.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the aforesaid" two orders terminating the service contract of the Petitioner has been passed by the Project Director de hors the provisions contained in the Bihar Education Project Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations") which inter alia provide that a proceeding be initiated against the employee of the Council before any penalty as enumerated in Rule 52 of the Regulations is inflicted on him. In this connection reference is made to Rule 54 of the Regulations which inter alia provide that no order imposing any penalty on any employee shall be passed except after informing the employee in writing of the action proposed to be taken against him. It is further submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that before the Project Director proceeded to pass the order dated 4.3.2009, Annexure-11 he never informed the Petitioner in writing of the charges levelled against him as also of the action proposed to be taken against him and straightway proceeded to pass the impugned order terminating the contract on the basis of the reports received from the District Magistrate and the District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Coordinator, Saran. In the background aforesaid it is submitted that for the failure of the Project Director to inform the Petitioner of the charges levelled against him as also of the action proposed to be taken against him the order suffers from the vice of being violative of the provisions contained in Rule 54 of the Regulations and on this ground alone the same should be set aside.